Climate Depot Special Report:

More Than 1000 International Scientists

Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming

Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading

“Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010

(Updates Previous 2009 U.S. Senate Report: “More Than 700 International Scientists

Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”)

www.ClimateDepot.com

CFACT

Released: December 8, 2010

Updates U.S. Senate Report Presented at the United Nations Climate Change

Conference in Poznan, Poland in 2008

Updated: December 22, 2008; January 27, 2009; March 16, 2009 & December 8, 2010

Contact: Marc Morano – Morano@ClimateDepot.com - 202-536-5052

Updates 2009 U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming

Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus”

Available Online at http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-

1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--

Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

2

INTRODUCTION:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around

the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President

Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the

2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism

about the so-called global warming ―consensus‖ -- features the skeptical voices of over

1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,

who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic

increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the

last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global

warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months

ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out

publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN

scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -

- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the

international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,"

said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke.

Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist

Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil

Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita

also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just

probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of

publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the

IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC

and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called

for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate

as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in

the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN

IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also

explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former

member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly

critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at

long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support

[the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate

change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate

manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out

On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of

geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3,

3

2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the

doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that

it is no longer a credible agency."

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international

scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We‟re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media,

there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because

there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another

150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed

as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services &

Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA

Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research

Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently

a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to

control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find

much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is

a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without

asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.‖ -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford

University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in

1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that

fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't

happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their

brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of

Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal

transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that

it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet‟s climate is doing its own thing, but we

cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of

years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply

lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the

head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism,

Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world

evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories

and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian

Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book ―The Global Warming Fraud:

How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.‖

4

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore‖ -- Chemistry

Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State

University in Maryland, during her presentation titled ―Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide

and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.‖

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is

relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global

warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what „science‟

has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C.

Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled

―The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor

concentration in the troposphere‖ and he published a paper in August 2009 titled

―Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.‖ [Updated December 9,

2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal.

Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done

within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has

actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with

the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the

Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9,

2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves „Green planet advocates‟ should be arguing for a CO2-

fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the

planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore's personal

behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his

bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save

the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was

named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and

Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than

any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way

that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role

corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about

AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I

know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been

abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with

Australia‘s CSIRO‘s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)

Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change,

because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.‖ -- Greek

Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical

University of Athens‘ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

5

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These

cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the

problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we

are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” --

Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of

Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of

significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.”

-- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute

for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming

claims titled ―Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global

Warming.‖

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There

appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC‟s

Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.‖ -- South African

astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa

(ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute

of Physics.

End Selected Excerpts

#

The rapidity of the global warming establishment's collapse would have been unheard of

just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical

Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud

I have seen in my long life." UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what

Climategate revealed: "The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...the whole

theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed."

Even the usually reliable news media has started questioning the global warming claims.

Newsweek Magazine wrote in May 2010 about the "uncertain science" and how "climate

researchers have lost the public's trust" from a "cascade of scandals" from the UN IPCC.

Newsweek compared the leaders of the climate science community to "used-car

salesmen. "Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen"

and the magazine noted that "some of IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations

were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles...Just as

damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the

integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments." For full

list of Climategate related scandals See: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates --

94 climate-gates total -- 28 new gates -- 145 links to reports with details

As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading

lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth &

Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global

warming activist movement. "There is 'a lack of willingness in the climate change

6

community to steer away from groupthink...‘ They are setting themselves up as second-

rate scientists by not engaging,‖ Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for

promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC's claims.

"They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry

lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies,

trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics...the

IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry

wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular

unraveling of the climate change juggernaut...I immediately realized that [Climategate]

could bring down the IPCC...I became concerned about the integrity of our entire

field...While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists

involved and assuring people that the 'science hadn't changed." [Note: Curry is not

included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Also see: 'High Priestess of

Global Warming' No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being 'Duped Into

Supporting IPCC' - 'If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic'] [Note: There

were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short

of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment

exonerating the global warming establishment." See here, here, and here. The

InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.]

As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming

claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to

retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that,

"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people

that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate

change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked

the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen

as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even

father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got

the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are

more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they‘re

scared stiff of the fact that they don‘t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are

doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven‘t got the physics worked

out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that

climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The

skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a

religion. It had gone too far that way." [Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of

dissenting scientists in this report.] [Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain

about the science. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist

Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool'

-- Admits 'Jury is still out' on ocean cycle's temp impact!]

More woes for the movement were felt when left-leaning environmental activists began

jumping ship. See: Left-wing Env. Scientist Denis Rancourt Bails Out Of Global

Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary

problem of the 1st World middleclass' & Meet the green who doubts 'The Science':

Environmentalist Peter Taylor 'explains why he's skeptical about manmade global

warming — and why greens are so intolerant' & Activists at green festivals expressing

7

doubts over man-made climate fears. ―One college professor, confided to me in private

conversation that, 'I'm not sure climate change is real,'‖ according to a report from the

New York Green Festival.

2010 saw the once vaulted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In

June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that

claims such as "2,500 of the world‘s leading scientists have reached a consensus that

human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous.

Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by

a very small gaggle of people. "That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in

the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection

and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields." [Note: Hulme is

not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

In another blow to the UN IPCC's carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William

Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate.

Schlesinger said, ―Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some

dealing with climate.‖ By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC

membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note,

that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: 'There are more than 100 expert

sub disciplines involved in climate change studies' & Science magazine confused about

who is a 'prominent climate scientist' -- 'there is no specific climate discipline' & Claims

of 'overwhelming majority' of scientists exposed as laughable! 'There are just 94 authors

responsible for compiling the report in which...the [UN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm

rests'

The notion of climate "tipping points", popularized by former Vice President Al Gore and

NASA Scientist James Hansen, became the object of derision as well in 2010. See: 190-

year climate 'tipping point' issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate

Tipping Point' in 1989! Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global

Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium -- Earth 'Serially

Doomed'

Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA's James Hansen descended into

political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use.

Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for '"ridding the world of Industrial

Civilization". Hansen declared the author "has it right...the system is the problem."

Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes '"razing cities to the ground,

blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." The Grist

eco-magazine writer David Roberts noted in August 2010: "'I know I'm not supposed to

say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist terribly. All

influence lost."

Energy Sec. Chu came under fire for claiming science told him what the world was going

to be like 100 years from now. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu

claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now'

8

Obama Science Advisor John Holdren found his knowledge of the science of climate

change come under scrutiny after he issued a bizarre warning about the possible loss of

WINTER sea ice in the arctic. See: Obama science advisor: John Holdren ridiculed for

claiming Arctic could be ICE FREE IN WINTER!

The U.S. Congressional cap-and-trade bill collapse and the UN climate treaty failure has

left disillusioned within the global warming movement. Gore has admitted to feeling "a

little depressed." And it has left a spectacle of world leaders promising verbal non-

binding agreements to limit the earth's temp have left modern society attempting to ape

primitive cultures efforts to control the climate. See: Blaming all recent weather events

on man-made global warming is akin to astrology & Climate Astrology -- 'It Has Been

Foretold' of Extreme Weather: 'UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of

Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars'

In addition, the scientific underpinnings and the public support around the globe has

dropped so significantly that there is now open talk of moving on to the "next eco-scare"

Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for

saving species 'more powerful than climate change' – May 21, 2010 & Time for next eco-

scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already 'Test-

Marketing' the Next Eco-Fear! 'Laughing Gas' Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?

The carefully crafted "consensus" of man-made global warming has unraveled. See:

Prominent Geologist Dr. Easterbrook Slams Geological Society of America's climate

statement 'as easily refuted by data that clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and

global climate change' & American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made

Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims -- 29% Agree 'Global

Warming is a Scam' & Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in

4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN

In 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was

―startled‖ by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many

calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.

A 2010 Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German

Chancellor to ―reconsider‖ her climate views. See: 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More

than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears

'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009 More than 100

international scientists challenged President Obama's climate claims, calling them

"simply incorrect." In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an

Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ―the

science is NOT settled.‖ On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council

decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of

respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent

physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250

scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to

APS governing board: ―Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th

- 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and

9

geological records show many periods warmer than today.‖ An American Physical

Society editor conceded that a ―considerable presence‖ of scientific skeptics exists.

Russian scientists ―rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for

global warming‖. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International

Scientists demanded the UN IPCC ―be called to account and cease its deceptive

practices,‖ and a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68%

disagree that global warming science is ―settled.‖

Scientific meetings are being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The

prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the

Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the

voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical

scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to,

even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's

William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey

alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the "consensus" view. But the survey does not

hold up to scrutiny. See: 'Consensus' claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were

interviewed to get 97.4% agreement -- 'It would be interesting to learn who these

individuals are' & Climate Con: 97% 'Consensus' Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-

Selected Climatologists

#

This Climate Depot Special Report is not a ―list‖ of scientists, but a report that includes

full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading.

The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete

with their intended subtleties and caveats. This report features the names, biographies,

academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional

international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report

lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It

also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies,

scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the

scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields,

including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology;

oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences;

astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have

won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many

shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including:

Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of

Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of

Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of

10

Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre;

the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University

of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the

University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland;

University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India;

University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and

the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific

statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent

research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-

review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

(LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC

Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and

delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party‘s convention

platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements

endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both

the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate

statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these

institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-

and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone

Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby

for global warming bill & Cicerone's Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes

Advocacy Group -- 'political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are

virtually 100% dependent on gov't funding' MIT's Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked

NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen

testified: "Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is

predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies

will provide." [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‗Corrupted Science‘ in

Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally

rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate

variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model

predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2

fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds

of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip

Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.

"As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate

11

change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can

manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins

one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the

climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article.

"The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among

hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]

# #

Scientists Speak: More Than 1,000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made

Global Warming Claims

Released December 8, 2010. [Note: The 2009 and 2007 Report

is reprinted in full following the 2010 report]

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who

reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of

views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made

global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

UN IPCC‟s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of

the lead authors, is a metallurgical engineer, and the Director of Technical Services

& Development for U.S. Magnesium, dissented from man-made global warming fears

in 2009. ―We‘re not scientifically there yet,‖ Tripp said according to a July 16, 2009

article. Tripp said, ―There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it

difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man-made. ‗It

well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet.‘‖ Tripp also criticized modeling

schemes to evaluate global warming. Another article noted, ―Tripp's message on climate

change is Gore's polar opposite.‖ ―Despite what you may have heard in the media, there

is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem," Tripp said.

"Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for

another 150 years. ... There are indications, there are options, but if you are looking for

hard scientific facts, you are still a long ways away." (LINK) (LINK) [Note: Tripp was

lead author of subsection 4.5 in Volume 3 (Industrial Processes and Product Use)]

NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked 35 years at the NASA Langley

Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist.

12

Weinstein, who is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of

Aerospace, totally rejected global warming claims. ―Any reasonable scientific analysis

must conclude the basic theory wrong!!‖ Weinstein wrote on April 23, 2009. ―The final

question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated,

and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence

and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there

is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a

problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from

the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate,‖

Weinstein wrote. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, won

the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rejected global warming orthodoxy in

2010. ―Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to

control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation,‖ Laughlin wrote in

July 2010 in The American Scholar. Earth has suffered ―all manner of other abuses

greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It's a

survivor...Earth doesn't care whether you turn off your AC, refrigerator and TV. It

doesn't notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car,‖ Laughlin

wrote. ―You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather

observations,‖ he added. ―Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that

the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining

itself,‖ Laughlin explained. He continued: ―Global warming forecasts have the further

difficulty that you can‘t find much actual global warming in present-day weather

observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics,

hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don‘t,

because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such

as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have

nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you‘d have to

separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and

nobody knows how to do that yet.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory

at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation

of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming claims in

2010. When asked in a July 15, 2010 interview if climate change is not man-made,

Levitin responded: “Exactly; climate change is a physical process. Climate is in fact like

the Earth‘s energy budget. The Earth receives most energy from the Sun and some energy

from its depths – as we see in earthquakes and other reactions taking place deep inside

the Earth. That energy warms the oceans that store the warmth on the Earth‘s surface.

This is a kind of energy budget consisting of elements that come and go.‖ Levitin

continued: ―The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy

budget that it simply cannot affect the climate. However, the energy budget is very under-

studied because there is only a small range of observations used to measure it. This is a

very complicated process. Today we cannot measure it with 99% accuracy. Our current

measurements are only 10%-15% accurate. The change must be at least 1% to change the

climate. The planet‘s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant

13

trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began

only recently. Some processes take seconds and other years. You cannot check man‘s

state of health in a matter of seconds; the process could take a fortnight and even then the

result will not be definitive. The same goes for climate change. We are children of the

Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.‖ (LINK)

Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global

Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World

Emergency,” rejected man-made climate claims in 2010. Luis Lino declared it ―global

warming fraud‖ and called climate fears an ―imaginary threat.‖ ―AGW has been

forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins

in the elementary school textbooks,‖ he wrote on November 14, 2010. ―Hundreds of

billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a (AGW) theory that is not

supported by physical world evidences,‖ he added. ―History offers a gloomy precedent

of such poisoning of science by ideology and special interests: the infamous Lysenko

affair in the former Soviet Union, the ruthless opposition to genetics headed by Trofim D.

Lysenko and his cohorts between 1930s and 1960s...the physical elimination of stubborn

scientists who resisted the 'consensual official line' (the ‗skeptics‘ of the time)',‖ he

added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at

Frostburg State University in Maryland, declared her dissent from man-made

global warming fears during an April 2009 Earth Day presentation titled

Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View. "I am an

environmentalist," Mumper said on April 30, 2009, but "I must disagree with Mr. Gore."

According to the April 29, 2009 article in the University's newspaper The Bottom Line,

Mumper said, "We need to take care of our planet," and disagreed with the idea of putting

all research money into CO2 abatement. ―In my skeptic's mind, that is foolish,‖ she said

during her presentation. Mumper ―believes that announcements such as Gore's, saying

that the debate over climate change is over are false.‖ ―Mumper's presentation explained

that the global warming skeptic tends to accept that mankind plays a role in warming the

earth, both through greenhouse gas, and especially urbanization, but the lack of warming

in rural areas suggests that the greenhouse gas component is overblown.‖ According to

the article, Mumper also explained that ―Gore's message, as well as that of the IPCC,

states that anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide gas is responsible for warming the

planet, and is leading the planet to become an unlivable place for mankind. Mumper

explained to her audience that CO2 is a natural gas, produced by every animal on earth

with every breath. ―Without that gas,‖ explains Mumper, ―there would be no life on

earth.‖ (LINK)

Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics

Unit at Stockholm University, dissented from the global warming movement in 2009.

―The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal,‖ Jelbring

wrote in August 2009. ―Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way

it has been done within the Climate Science Community,‖ Jelbring added. Jelbring noted

that many of global warming promoting scientists ―have actively suppressed research

results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma that they and the

IPCC have set without support of accepted scientific methods." He called the UN IPCC a

14

―political‖ organization and accused the IPCC of making claims ―without complying with

scientific methods according to its Swedish definition. It should be observed that the

IPCC statements have no validity, as information with scientific quality.‖ Jelbring

lamented that ―recognized servants in the specialized topics of climatology and

meteorology in Sweden have failed to accomplish their duty to present facts and results

that, according to Swedish law, has to be based on scientific methods and acknowledged

experience.‖ He went on to explain that the ―Greenhouse Effect phenomenon is not a

result of human emissions.‖ (LINK) [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's

quote.]

Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, was named "100 most

influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him

"the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living

engineer." Rutan has received “hundreds of awards including: Presidential

Citizen's Medal, Two Collier Trophies, Academy of Achievement Golden Plate and

the Charles Lindbergh Award. He has developed 44 new aircraft types since 1972

including; Voyager, SpaceShipOne, and the first commercial spaceship –

SpaceShipTwo. Rutan, declared himself skeptical of man-made global warming. Rutan

mocked the alleged climate ―crisis‖ in August 2009. ―Complex data from disparate

sources can be processed and presented in very different ways, and to ‗prove‘ many

different theories,‖ Rutan explained. ―For decades, as a professional experimental test

engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present

data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – ‗if someone is aggressively selling a technical

product who‘s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying‘.

That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit,‖ Rutan said. In

September 2009, Rutan added, ― It looks to me like the history and the geology and the

biology all pretty much say ‗Warm is good, cold is bad,‘‖ he added. ―Those who call

themselves "Green planet advocates‖ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere,

not a CO2-starved atmosphere," says Rutan. "Just do a bit of research and you will find

that diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric

content." According to Rutan, "You will also find that we almost had a planet

catastrophe when the atmospheric CO2 went down to its low of 180 parts per million.

Below 150 ppm, plants die and then we animals die. A more ideal atmosphere for a

green planet (4 or 5 times the current CO2) is what we had when the dinosaurs roamed a

planet that was nearly all green, pole to pole. Oh, BTW, Al Gore's personal behavior

supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does

indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.‖

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia‟s CSIRO‟s

(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of

Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research, rejected

man-made global warming fears in October 2009. Reid bluntly called the climate fear

movement ―a new religion that has grown out of secular humanism.‖ He explained that

―Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith.‖

Reid explained: ―My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who

has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect

the scientific method has been abandoned in this field. Back in the early 1990s when I

15

was still working for the CSIRO and the early versions of the AGW theory started to gain

currency, I was rather bemused by the passions which were aroused in my colleagues and

the gullibility with which predictions of future climate disaster were accepted.‖ He

added: ―In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is

the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is

the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul

in proselytizing the new faith. Meteorologists regularly test model ‗skill‘. Climatologists

don‘t seem to have a concept of testing, and prefer to use the term ‗verification‘ instead—

that is, they do not seek to invalidate their models; they only seek supporting evidence.‖

(LINK) (LINK)

Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at

Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy (especially biofuels), thermal

transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems. Kobus

declared man-made global warming a "fraud." "In essence, the jig is up," Kobus wrote on

December 7, 2010. "The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data

are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen," Kobus wrote.

"Perhaps what has doomed the ClimateGate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in

fudging the data. It wasn't just the temperature reconstruction of the past from tree rings,

ice cores and other indirect methods, but their current system of fudging actual direct

temperature data from weather stations and their placement in urban environments that

tend to be warmer due to artificial structures while intentionally not putting sensors away

from civilization that would show true surface temperature," he added. Kobus has

referred to NASA's James Hansen as a "climate kook." Kobus maintains that the human

impact on climate is small. "Human activity is a small spec in the CO2 output cycle,

accounting for all of 2.33% of total CO2 output. Worse yet, that totally ignored the most

voluminous greenhouse gas in our atmosphere - water vapor. If one takes water vapor

into account, then CO2 contributes about 4% of atmospheric greenhouse gases, of which

we contribute 3.2% of that 4%. You can see where this is going, right?" he added.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Tim Coleman rejected the 'hysteria' of global warming in

2009. ―'It has now gotten to the point that almost any major weather event is blamed by

someone on global climate change,‖ Coleman wrote in October 2009. ―The global

warming hysteria in the media really began to heat up after Hurricane Katrina struck the

Gulf Coast. The snow at a National League Playoff game this year, California wildfires,

and some tornadoes, droughts, and floods are blamed on AGW. These types of events

have been occurring for hundreds of years,‖ Coleman explained. ―The recent usage of the

phrase ‗global climate change‘ seems to protect the AGW people; they have their bases

covered now. They have even discussed a scenario where global warming and ice melting

will cause a problem with the Gulf Stream and an Ice Age in North America. So, even if

it gets very cold for many years, they can say it was AGW,‖ he added. ―No one mentions

the possible advantages of AGW, if it is occurring. Some models apparently indicate that

the most intense warming would occur in the polar regions. Is that all bad? Maybe people

could grow crops in Siberia and northern Canada, and sea lanes would open for shipping

in the Arctic. ―Winters could be warmer, lowering some energy bills,‖ he wrote. (LINK)

16

Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National

Technical University of Athens‟ Department of Water Resources and

Environmental Engineering, declared their dissent in 2009. ―We maintain there is no

reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no

evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening,‖ Christofides and Mamassis wrote

on November 17, 2009. ―Climate is equally uncertain at all zoom levels. In fact,

mathematical analysis of the climate indicates that its behavior is such that the

uncertainty is the maximum possible at all zoom levels. This maximization of uncertainty

at all scales is called the Hurst-Kolmogorov behavior of climatic processes. Nature loves

uncertainty, and it fools us in two ways: on the one hand we wouldn‘t be able to predict

the future of climate, even if we fully knew the natural laws that govern it, because of

chaos; and on the other hand, we can‘t be very certain of the statistically expected

behavior of climate which is based on our observations of the past, because of the Hurst-

Kolmogorov behavior.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of

Sciences, rejected man-made climate claims in 2009. Makarevich ―says there are clear

cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles, he says, are

related to solar activity.‖ In a November 29, 2009 article, he explained: ―In my opinion

and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are

being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere

or of the oceans.‖ ―Makarevich expects a normalization of Arctic temperatures in the

coming years. This view appears to have the support of a growing number of Russian

scientists. Some even predict a temporary cooling of temperatures towards the middle of

this century, a phenomenon known as a ‗Little Ice Age.‘‖ (LINK)

Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock, an honorary fellow with

Institute for Economic Affairs, published a study challenging man-made global

warming claims in 2009. Beenstock‘s paper, titled ―Polynomial Cointegration Tests of

the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming,‖ found ―that greenhouse gas forcings do

not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore,

previous claims that carbon emissions permanently increase global temperature are false.

Although we find no permanent effect of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature,

there appears to be a temporary, or short-term, effect. We show that this temporary effect

can easily be mistaken for a permanent one. Polynomial cointegration tests show that the

putative permanent effect is induced by the spurious regression phenomenon.‖ The paper

continued: ―Because the effect is temporary, recent global warming should be interpreted

as a short-term response to increased carbon emissions, which is expected to be reversed

in the future.‖ The paper added: ―Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than

permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not

supported by the data.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society

of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow

of the British Institute of Physics, rejected global warming claims in April 2010. ―The

whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded,‖ Ratcliffe said.

Ratcliffe ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore's ―supposed science.‖ ―The data does

not support Gore's hypothesis,‖ he explained. Ratcliffe also pulled no punches in an April

17

14, 2010 interview. ―Without trying too hard, I found 35 fundamental ‗errors‘ in An

Inconvenient Truth. The word ‗errors‘ is in quotation marks because it is inconceivable to

me that these falsehoods could all have been inadvertent. Some or possibly all were put

there to deceive the viewer. There appears to have been money gained by [Michael]

Mann, Gore and [UN IPCC‘s] Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.

If proven in a court of law, they should be heavily punished and their ill-gotten assets

confiscated and put to the benefit of mankind.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Award-winning Swedish Mathematics Professor Dr. Claes Johnson of the Royal

Institute of Technology has authored 100 scientific articles and 6 books on applied

mathematics, partial differential equations, finite element methods and numerical

analysis. Johnson rejected global warming claims in 2010 and took on the entire premise

of the greenhouse gas effect. ―AGW alarmism is based on an idea of ‗back radiation‘ or

‗re-radiation‘ from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this

phenomenon remains unclear.‖ Johnson explained that backradiation from atmospheric

greenhouse CO2 ―is unphysical and purely fictional.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Tom Russell of CBS affiliate in Harrisburg PA, who is certified

by both the American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association,

dissented in 2009. ―Despite what you‘ve heard, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It‘s kind

of important to our survival. Research now shows that CO2 does not drive temperature

but rather temperature drives CO2,‖ Russell said in October 2009. ―Adding twice the

CO2 does not double the effect. The initial tons of CO2 matter, but adding more has less

and less effect. Imagine painting a window with black paint: The first coat does most of

the work, the extra coats don‘t matter much,‖ Russell explained. ―We can't keep a stray

shower from ruining your picnic, so how are we going to stop climate change,‖ he asked.

―I don't know what's more arrogant: Saying we caused it or saying we can stop it,‖ he

added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Meteorologist Dave Epstein, who teaches at Framingham State College, declared

man-made warming fears ―one of the biggest myths of modern time‖ in 2009. In an April

2009 essay titled Where is the Science Behind Climate Change Claims? Epstein

explained his views. ―As an environmental advocate I have placed land under

conservation and restored habitats. I recycle, reuse rainwater, walk when others drive,

and generally leave a small environmental footprint. Yet I am angered by climatologists,

environmentalists, and politicians who purvey one of the biggest myths of modern time:

that climate change (aka global warming) during the past half century is primarily due to

anthropogenic (manmade) causes," he wrote. Epstein continued: ―Long-term climate data

indicate that world climate varies naturally, and those cycles are the collective result of

scores of interrelated variables, playing out either in consort or not. Volcanic activity,

sunspots, ocean currents, global winds, and more interact to cool and warm Earth. Man

plays a role, but it is dwarfed by the natural variability of the planet.," he added. "The

entire premise of man controlling the weather or climate will, if left unchallenged, yield

rules and regulations as crazy as the very premise on which they will be based.‖ (LINK)

(LINK)

Chemist Dr. Peter Bonk has researched oxidation-reduction catalysts for control of

CO/Hydrocarbon/NOx emissions from automotive engines. He worked in Central

18

Research Laboratories of Dow Chemical and is the author of nine scientific

publications and patents. Bonk, a member of the American Chemical Society,

rejected global warming science in 2010. ―When one realizes all the factors at play that

define and shape climate, the idea of hanging all the changes (and saying that they are all

bad) on CO2, an important but minor atmospheric component, seem beyond all reason,‖

Bonk wrote in a May 24, 2010 essay. ―The sun is huge, and since we know some cycles

occur every 22 years, it suggests that other longer term cycles of solar size, luminosity or

energy output would easily influence climate here on earth,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Award-winning Meteorologist J.R. Kirtek of Michigan's WJRT Channel 12, who

worked as a private weather-consultant and holds the American Meteorological

Society Seal of Approval, declared his climate dissent in 2009. "One of the major

problems we human beings have is our inability to comprehend 'time.' To us, 100 years is

a long time. Geologically speaking, 100 years isn't even the blink of an eye. Even when

we say on the news, 'an all-time record,' that really isn't the case at all. That only means

in the last 'blink of an eye,'‖ Kirtek told Associated Content according to an April 30,

2009 article. The article noted that Kirtek ―is skeptical of the so-called science of global

warming.‖ Kirtek ridiculed ―An Inconvenient Truth.‖ ―If the definition for a documentary

is 'presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a

book or film,' then I am confident that Al Gore's movie was not a documentary,‖ Kirtek

said. "I am the father of five children," "I want them to have a beautiful, healthy

environment in which to live. I also believe that we are stewards of the earth. God has

given us all that we have, and it is our duty to do everything possible to protect the earth,

and to use our resources wisely,‖ Kirtek explained. "Having said that, I am a

uniformitarianist. Uniformitarianism is a scientific principle still taught today at around

the 6th-grade level. Basically, it says that what happened in the past will happen again. In

the grand scheme of things I believe this to be true. There are far greater factors at work

than us, or what we are, or aren't doing.‖ (LINK)

Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the

journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between

surface temperature and water vapour concentration in the troposphere” and he

published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in

a Gravitational Field.” Gilbert harshly critiqued the ―consensus‖ view of global

warming. ―I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,‖ Gilbert wrote in

August 2009. The science ―community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2

and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain

attention. If this is what ‗science‘ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed,‖

Gilbert wrote. ―I was immediately amazed at the paltry level of scientific competence that

I found, especially in the basic areas of heat and mass transfer,‖ he added. The abstract to

his 2010 study reads in part: ―The theoretical and empirical thermodynamics discussed in

this paper explain the physics behind the observed reduction in relative humidity in the

upper troposphere as surface temperature and surface humidity increase. This contradicts

the physics embedded in current GCM models commonly used by the climate science

community.‖ (LINK) (LINK) [Updated December 9, 2010]

In August 2009, a coalition of German scientists dissented from man-made global

warming claims. 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists

19

Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge

Chancellor to 'reconsider' views The German scientists declared that a "growing body of

evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role." More than 60

prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global

warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than

60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists. The scientists

declared that global warming has become a ―pseudo religion‖ and they noted that rising

CO2 has ―had no measurable effect‖ on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote

that the ―UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.‖ The July 26, 2009 German scientist

letter urged Chancellor Merkel to ―strongly reconsider‖ her position on global warming

and requested a ―convening of an impartial panel‖ that is ―free of ideology‖ to counter

the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and

geology, explain that ―humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through

CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and

are due to natural cycles.‖

―More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2

plays no measurable role,‖ the scientists wrote. ―Indeed CO2's capability to absorb

radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed

have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long

term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,‖ they added.

―The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its

studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2

levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,‖ the scientists wrote.

―Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global

temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely

expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have

gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,‖ the scientists wrote.

―The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,‖

the scientists wrote. ―The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to

publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,‖ they added.

―Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a

hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We

strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial

panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology,

and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would

very much like to offer support in this regard.

Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German version

available here. (emphasis added):

Open Letter – Climate Change

20

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

#

Vizerprasident

Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg

14476 Grob Glienicke

Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often

determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for

humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor

decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or

ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural

development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era

is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier

as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high

priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to

much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you

are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have

made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called

greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check

whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even

justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would

have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable

effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature

fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed

the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global

temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According

to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite

has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2

plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost

exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect

and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would

in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its

studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2

21

levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this

subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a

pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based

analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international

scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific

works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was

not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard.

Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views

that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second

International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March,

approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best

climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener

Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television

and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under

earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they

know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just

confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better

explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject

and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact

Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be

openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this

regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#

Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by

Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied

Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration

Engineering, FH Düsseldorf

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH -

Environmental Services

5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

22

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist

9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.

10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist

12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR

14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist

15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist

16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-

SUISSE

17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist,

Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist

19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist

20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist

22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical

Chemistry

23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist

24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler

25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist

27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig

28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research

GmbH

29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster

30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist

31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science

journalist

32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist

33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew

34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and

business of Saarland

35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology

/ Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin

36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist

37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta

38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-

Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster

39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert

40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist

41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter

42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for

Standards and Norms i.R.

43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg

44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH

23

45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist

46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist

47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor

48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist

49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist

50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator

51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist

52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor

53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment

Meteorologist 54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy

Leipzig

55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS

56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist

57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist

58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist

59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences

60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist

61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

[End Translation of full German scientist letter]

# #

24

In 2010, more than 260 scientists who are members of the American Physical

Society (APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr.

Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made

global warming. Happer; who testified to Congress that the Earth in 'CO2 Famine',

initially led a group of 80 prominent physicists in 2009 who petitioned the APS revise its

global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ―Measured or

reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither

exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods

warmer than today.‖

The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists

persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor

conceded that a ―considerable presence‖ of scientific skeptics exists. The 54 physicists

grew to over 260 in 2010 with another open letter to APS. Below is the most current list

of signatories expressing dissent from the APS current climate statement. (Note, the list

of signatories below includes several new scientists not reflected in the weblink)

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: A

Petition to the Council of the American Physical Society

"As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned

petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment

of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming. The assessment

should consider findings representing the full scope of available scientific sources. The

assessment is to be used as a basis for a new Statement on Climate Change that reflects

the current state of scientific knowledge and its uncertainties. This Petition is to be

provided to the membership for comment prior to action by the Council."

Respectfully,

Joseph H. Abeles Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Director, Business

Development Sarnoff Corporation

Harold M. Agnew, President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House

Science Councilor (1982 -1989) Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 -1979),

E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A.

Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering;

Fellow APS, AAAS

Sol Aisenberg, President, International Technology Group Formerly, Staff Member,

MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School; Visiting Research Professor, Boston University

Ralph B. Alexander, Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University

President, R.B. Alexander & Associates Technology and market analysis in

environmentally friendly materials and coatings Author, Global Warming False Alarm

(Canterbury)

Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of

North Carolina -Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American

Scientific Affiliation

25

Louis J. Allamandola, Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research

Center Fellow APS, AAAS Member ACS, American Astronomical Society, International

Astronomical Union

James L. Allen, Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing

Company (retired)

Arthur G. Anderson, Vice President and former Director of Research IBM (retired)

Fellow APS, Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

Charles R. Anderson, President and Principal Scientist Anderson Materials Evaluation,

Inc. Former Research Physicist, Department of Navy Former Research Scientist,

Lockheed Martin Laboratories Member MRS, AVS

David V. Anderson, CEO, Asora Education Enterprises Research Physicist Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Former Councilor APS Senior Fellow APS

Eva Andrei, Professor of Physics Rutgers University Fellow APS

Robert H. Austin, Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS; APS

Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010 Member National Academy of Sciences, American

Association of Arts and Sciences

David A. Bahr, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Bemidji State

University

John M. Baker, Research Staff Member IBM T.J. Watson Research Center (retired) Life

Member APS

David F. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Colorado Fellow and Life

Member APS; Member American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society,

AAPT, AAAS

Franco Battaglia, Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry

University of Modena, Italy Life Member APS

Peter J. Baum, Member of the Technical Staff General Research Corporation (retired)

Formerly, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at

Riverside Life Member American Geophysical Union

David J. Benard, Retired Aerospace Scientist Co-Inventor of the Chemical Oxygen-

Iodine Laser

Richard W. Benjamin, Senior Advisory Scientist Savannah River Site (DOE) (retired)

Member ANS, AAAS

26

Lev I. Berger, President California Institute of Electronics and Materials Science Author,

Semiconductor Materials; and Material and Device Characterization Measurements (CRC

Press)

Stuart B. Berger, Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager Xerox

Corporation (retired)

Ami E. Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego

Fellow APS

Alan Berman, Dean Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University

of Miami (retired) Former Director of Research, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Fellow

APS, Fellow Acoustical Society of America

Barry L. Berman, Columbian Professor and Chair Physics Department The George

Washington University Fellow APS

Edwin X. Berry, Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC Certified Consulting

Meteorologist #180 Member American Meteorological Society

Frances M. Berting, Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board and Committee

(2000-present) Los Alamos County Council (2001-2008) Formerly, Materials Scientist,

Hanford (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Westinghouse, Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory

Vladislav A. Bevc, Associate Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (retired);

Formerly, Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation; Physicist,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Stanford

University) Senior Member IEEE

Joseph J. Bevelacqua, President, Bevelacqua Resources Author, Health Physics in the

21st Century (Wiley); Contemporary Health Physics (Wiley) Member American Nuclear

Society, AMS, Mathematical Association of America, Health Physics Society, American

Academy of Health Physics, AAPT Diplomat of the American Board of Health Physics

Matthew S. Bigelow, Assistant Professor Department of Physics, Astronomy, and

Engineering Science St. Cloud State University Member OSA

Clifford Bruce Bigham, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (retired) Senior Member APS,

Sustaining Member CAP

Arie Bodek, George E. Pake Professor of Physics University of Rochester Wolfgang K.

H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004 Fellow APS

Stephen E. Bodner, Naval Research Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

John W. Boring, Professor Emeritus of Engineering Physics University of Virginia F.

Paul Brady Principal, BPF Investments/Charitable Investments Professor of Physics

27

University of California at Davis (retired) Senior Fulbright Scholar, Ford Foundation

Fellow Fellow APS

James D. Brasher Sr,. Professional Staff The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics

Laboratory Air and Missile Defense Department Life Member Sigma Xi

Richard J. Briggs, Formerly, Program Manager, Science Applications International

Corporation Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory Associate

Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Associate Professor, MIT Fellow

APS, AAAS

Lowell S. Brown, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Washington Scientific

Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

Thomas G. Brown, Professor of Optics The Institute of Optics University of Rochester

Fellow OSA

Daniel M. Bubb, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Rutgers

University, Camden

William R. Burdett, Principal Consultant, FSIM Consulting Formerly, E-Government

Architect U.S. Department of Justice (retired); Geophysical Modeling and Simulation

General Research Corporation

William T. Buttler, Experimental Physicist Physics Division Los Alamos National

Laboratory Editor, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 2009 (APS) Timothy D.

Calvin President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired) Fabricated rubber products for the DOD,

shoe and automobile industries Member ACS

William J. Camp, Emeritus Director: Computation, Information, and Mathematics

Sandia National Laboratories Co-founder, IUPAP Commission C-20, The Commission

on Computational Physics Nova Award for Invention of Cray XT3 Computer

Architecture (Lockheed Martin Corporation) Fellow APS, Member IEEE Computer

Society

Mark L. Campbell, Professor, Department of Chemistry United States Naval Academy

Life Member APS

Gregory H. Canavan, Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National

Laboratory Fellow APS

Jeffrey A. Casey, President Rockfield Research, Inc. Member IEEE

Jack G. Castle, Senior Scientist Sandia National Laboratories (retired) Fellow and Life

Member APS

Carmen A. Catanese, Executive Vice President Sarnoff Corporation (retired) Life

Member APS

28

Jose´ M. Cervero, Professor of Theoretical Physics Departamento de Fisica

Fundamental Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Salamanca

C. Todd Chadwick, Experimental Design Consultant Member AES Joseph F. Chiang

Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State

University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS

Michael R. Clover, Science Applications International Corporation

William T. Coffey, Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Dublin, Trinity

College Author, The Langevin Equation (World Scientific Publishing) Member Editorial

Board, Advances in Chemical Physics Member Royal Irish Academy; Fellow APS, IET,

Institute of Physics

Roger W. Cohen, Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation

(retired) Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006 Fellow APS

Robert K. Conger, President Conger and Associates Consulting

John W. Cox, Director, Advanced Sensor Engineering Aerospace Corporation

Lawrence Cranberg, Professor of Physics University of Virginia (retired) Fellow APS

Barry D. Crane, Project Director Institute for Defense Analyses Life Member APS

Steven R. Cranmer, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006 Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research:

Space Physics Member American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union

J. F. Cuderman, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National

Laboratories (retired), Life Member APS Stephen M. Curry Director of Engineering

Dallas Semiconductor Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (retired) Member OSA

Jerry M. Cuttler, President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc. Engineering, consulting, and

licensing services for the nuclear power industry President, Canadian Nuclear Society

(1995-1996) Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society, Member American Nuclear Society

James H. Degnan, Principal Physicist Directed Energy Directorate Air Force Research

Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph G. Depp, Founding President and CEO, Accuray Incorporated (retired)

Stereotactic radiosurgery technology Founding President and CEO, PsiStar Incorporated

Life Member APS

Daniel K. Deptuck, Staff Scientist, Optoelectronics Engineering CMC Microsystems

Member SPIE

29

Riccardo DeSalvo, Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave

Observatory (LIGO) California Institute of Technology Member ASME

James A. Deye, Nuclear and Medical physicist Life Member APS

Eugene H. Dirk, APS Division of Astrophysics, and Division of Computational Physics

Topical Groups on Gravity, and Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants

Albert C. Doskocil, Program Manager Raytheon Company (retired) Life Member APS

David H. Douglass, Professor of Physics University of Rochester Fellow APS

Jerry T. Dowell, Senior Staff Scientist Agilent Technologies (retired) Member IEEE,

American Society for Mass Spectroscopy, AAPT

Paul J. Drallos, President and CEO, Plasma Dynamics Corporation (retired) Kinetic &

fluid dynamic computer simulation services

James E. Draper, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Davis

Fellow APS

Murray Dryer, Emeritus Scientist Space Weather Prediction Center (retired), NWS

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Science Award for

interplanetary shock wave research (AIAA) 1975 Member American Astronomical

Society, American Geophysical Union, AIAA

William T. Duffy Jr., Professor Emeritus of Physics Santa Clara University

Tomasz Durakiewicz, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory

David F. Edwards, Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired)

Formerly, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Professor of Physics and Electrical

Engineering, Colorado State University; Lincoln Laboratory, MIT

Albert G. Engelhardt, President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc. Environmental control and

security systems Senior Life Member IEEE

James E. Enstrom, Research Professor Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center

University of California at Los Angeles Life Member APS

Vladimir Escalante-Ramirez, Researcher Center for Radio Astronomy and

Astrophysics National Autonomous University of Mexico

Mario E. Fajardo, Principal Research Chemist Munitions Directorate Air Force

Research Laboratory Member ACS

John R. Fanchi, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Energy Institute

Texas Christian University Author, Energy in the 21st Century (World Scientific

30

Publishing); Author, Energy: Technology and Directions for the Future (Elsevier)

Member SEG, SPE

Jens G. Feder, Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo Fellow

APS

Mauro Ferrari, Professor and Chairman Department of Nanomedicine and Biomedical

Engineering Professor of Internal Medicine University of Texas Health Center

Douglas E. Fields, Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy

University of New Mexico

Edward J. Finn, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Georgetown University Chair,

Department of Physics (1990-1993) President University faculty Senate (1980-1982)

NSF Program Manager (1981-1983) Co-author, Fundamental University Physics

(Addison Wesley)

Robert A. Fisher, Consultant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Scientist

(retired) Department of Chemistry and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

University of California at Berkeley

Michael M. Fitelson, Chief Scientist, Micro-Systems Enablers Northrop Grumman

Electronic Systems

Joseph R. Florian, Co-Founder of Jaycor Networks Incorporated Senior Scientist,

Jaycor, SAIC Member IEEE

Harold K. Forsen, Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation (retired) Governing

Board, National Research Council (1994-2003) Foreign Secretary, National Academy of

Engineering (1995-2003) Arthur Holly Compton Award (ANS) 1972 Member National

Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, ANS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Bruce L. Freeman, Senior Experimental Physicist, Ktech Corporation Formerly,

Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M Coauthor Explosively Driven Pulsed

Power (Springer);Explosive Pulsed Power (Imperial College) Member IEEE Plasma

Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society

Michael H. Frese, Designer/Developer of Multiphysics Simulation Codes and

Applications Founder and Managing Member of NumerEx, LLC Member SIAM, IEEE

James L. Friar, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Martin Fricke, Corporate Officer Science Applications International Corporation; The

Titan Corporation Former Elected Member POPA Fellow APS

Peter D. Friedman, Associate Professor Chairman, Department of Mechanical

Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Member American Geophysical

Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society Ian J. Fritz Research Physicist, Sandia

31

National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award 1991 Basic Energy Sciences Sustained

Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993 NOVA Award 2001 (Lockheed Martin

Corporation)

Rodger L. Gamblin, Managing Director Corona Color, LLC

John C. Garth, Research Physicist Air Force Research Laboratory (retired) Member

ANS, ASTM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Computational Medical

Physics Working Group

G. Roger Gathers, Senior Scientist, M. H. Chew and Associates Physicist, Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory (1967-1993) Author, Selected Topics in Shock Wave

Physics and Equation of State Modeling (World Scientific Publishing)

Gary J. Gerardi, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Physics William Paterson

University

Ulrich H. Gerlach, Professor and Vice Chair Department of Mathematics Ohio State

University

Ivar Giaever, Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 Member National Academy

of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS

George T. Gillies, Research Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science; and

Research Professor, Department of Physics University of Virginia Clinical Professor,

Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Fellow APS

Damon Giovanielli, President, Sumner Associates scientific consultants Former Division

Leader, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL staff member, program

and line manager (1972-1993) Fellow AAAS

Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – Pan American

Member AMS, Albert Gold Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Harvard University (retired)

Ronald B. Goldfarb, National Institute of Standards and Technology Life Member APS

Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive

Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section

APS

Paul M. Grant, EPRI Science Fellow (retired) IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus

Senior Life Fellow APS

Howard D. Greyber, University of Pennsylvania (retired) Formerly, Princeton

University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University Member American

Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society

32

Ronald J. Gripshover, Senior Research Physicist Naval Surface Weapons Center

(retired)

Roger Grismore, Research Professor Physics Department California Polytechnic State

University, San Luis Obispo Member American Geophysical Union, N. Y. Academy of

Sciences

David E. Groce, Science Applications International Corporation (retired) Formerly,

General Atomics Corporation Member AAAS, Lyncean Group

Mike Gruntman, Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California Author,

Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry (AIAA) Luigi G.

Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics) 2006 Member

American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA George Hacken Senior Director,

Safety-Critical Systems New York City Transit Authority Formerly, Senior Member of

the Technical Staff, GEC-Marconi Aerospace Chair, New York Chapter, IEEE Computer

Society Member AMS, SIAM, ANS, AIAA, New York Academy of Sciences

David S. Hacker, Senior Staff Research Engineer Amoco Corporation (retired)

Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Illinois, Chicago Circle

(1965-1981) Fellow AIChE

Aksel Hallin, Canada Research Chair in Astroparticle Physics Department of Physics

University of Alberta Fellow APS

Sultan Hameed, Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric

Sciences Stony Brook University, New York

William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow

APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences

Rodney E. Harrington, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology Arizona State University

Fellow APS, AAAS; Member ACS, American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular

Biology

Joseph G. Harrison, Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama

at Birmingham Member ACS, MRS

Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut Editor,

The Energy Advocate Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake) Dennis B.

Hayes Research Physicist Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratories President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired) Fellow

APS

John R. Henley, Science Applications International Corporation Life Member APS

Joseph F. Hiller, Inchem, LLC Member ACS

33

Jack M. Hollander, Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of

California, Berkeley Vice-President Emeritus, The Ohio State University First Head,

Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

David B. Holtkamp, Scientific Staff Member Physics Division Los Alamos National

Laboratory

John H. Huckans, Assistant Professor Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

John C. Ingraham, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)

Member American Geophysical Union

Helen Jackson, Research Physicist, Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Laboratory

Member Materials Research Society, IEEE

Kenneth A. Jackson, President, Materials Research Society (1976-1977) President,

American Association for Crystal Growth (1970-1976) Chalmers Award (Materials

Society of the AIME) 2003 Award of the American Association for Crystal Growth

1993; Matthewson Gold Medal (AIME) 1966 Member National Academy of

Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS, The Metallurgical Society

Michael A. Joffe, Test Engineer Manager Luminus Devices, Inc. Member OSA H.

Richard Johnson Co-Founder and Former CEO Watkins-Johnson Company (retired) Life

Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

James R. Johnson, 3M Company (retired) Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame)

Member National Academy of Engineering

O‟Dean Judd, LANL Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Technical

Advisor and Consultant Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS

Andrew Kaldor, Distinguished Scientific Advisor Manager of Breakthrough Research

ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow AAAS, Member ACS

Alexander E. Kaplan, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

The Johns Hopkins University Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005

Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996 Fellow OSA

Thomas J. Karr, Director, DARPA & Strategic Projects, Advanced Concepts &

Technology Division Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory (1984-1996) Editor, Applied Optics (1991-1994) Member OSA,

AAAS; Senior Member IEEE

Thomas W. Karras, Senior Fellow Lockheed Martin Commercial Space Systems Life

Member APS, Member OSA, AIAA, SPIE

David J. Kaup, Provost‘s Distinguished Professor Department of Mathematics

University of Central Florida

34

Jonathan Katz, Professor of Physics Washington University

William E. Keller, Leader, Low Temperature Physics Group 1971-1985 Los Alamos

National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

Hugh Kendrick, Acting Director Office of Plans and Analysis, Asst. Secretary for

Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE Assistant to the President, Science Applications

International Corporation (retired) Life Member APS, Member ANS

John M. Kennel, Autonetics Division, Boeing North American (retired) Formerly,

Electronics Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation Member AAAS, AIAA

Paul I. Kingsbury, Manager, Physical Properties Research Department Corning Inc.

(retired)

Robert S. Knox, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Rochester Member APS

Council 1985-1988 Fellow APS

William A. Koldewyn, Senior Consultant Strategic Space Development, Inc. Adjunct

Professor of Physics, Dixie State College Staff Consultant and SBSS Chief Scientist, Ball

Aerospace & Technology Corp. (retired)

Richard V. Kollarits, Member of the Technical Staff AT&T Laboratories/Research,

Retired

Iannis Kominis, Assistant Professor Department of Physics University of Crete

Robert A. Koslover, Senior Scientist Scientific Applications and Research Associates

(SARA), Inc.

M. Kristiansen, C.B.Thornton/P.W.Horn Professor Department of Electrical and

Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Fellow APS, IEEE

Moyses Kuchnir, Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (retired) Life

Member APS, Member IEEE, AAAS

Lorenz A. Kull, President and Chief Operating Officer Science Applications

International Corporation (retired) Life Member APS; Member AAAS, IEEE

Joseph A. Kunc, Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California

Fellow APS

Gary S. Kyle, George W. Gardner Professor of Physics New Mexico State University

Paul L. La Celle, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering Former Chair,

Department of Biophysics University of Rochester Alexander von Humboldt Senior

Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort

35

Sau-Hai Lam, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Princeton University Member National

Academy of Engineering, Fellow AIAA

Steven K. Lamoreaux, Professor of Physics Yale University Former Laboratory Fellow,

Los Alamos National Laboratory APS Outstanding Referee Fellow APS, Life Member

APS

Jerzy M. Langer, Institute of Physics Polish Academy of Sciences Honorary Vice

President, Euroscience Fellow APS, Member Academia Euroapea Ronald C. Lasky

Professor, Thayer School of Engineering Director, Cook Engineering Design Center

Dartmouth College Senior Technologist, Indium Corporation

Robert B. Laughlin, Professor of Physics, Stanford University

E. O. Lawrence, Award in Physics 1985 Oliver E. Buckley Prize (APS) 1986 Nobel

Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS

André LeClair, Professor of Physics Cornell University

Robert E. LeLevier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957) Physics

Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971) R&D Associates (1971-1983) Eos Technologies,

Inc. (1983-1993)

John F. Lescher, High Technology Systems and Product Development and Marketing,

Civilian and Defense Industries Author, Online Market Research (Addison-Wesley)

Fellow APS; Senior Member AIAA; Member IEEE, American Marketing Association,

Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals

James D. Lester, Research Physicist (retired) Life Member IEEE

Robert E. Levine, Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired) Member

ACM, IEEE

Harold W. Lewis, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa

Barbara Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter Fellow APS, AAAS;

Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

John D. Lindl, James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007 Fellow APS,

AAAS

Xavier Llobet, Research Associate Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Gabriel G. Lombardi, Senior Scientist, Phase Coherence, Inc. National Research

Council Associate (NIST, 1980-82) Life Member APS, Member OSA

Michael D. Lubin, Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)

36

Farrel W. Lytle, CEO, The EXAFS Company First Recipient of the Farrel W. Lytle

Award (SSRL) 1998 Fellow APS, AAAS; Member ACS, Society for American

Archaeology

Alfred U. MacRae, President, MacRae Technologies Member National Academy of

Engineering; Fellow APS, IEEE

Frank L. Madarasz, Formerly, Scientific Advisor and Program Manager Air Force

Office of Scientific Research Project Scientist, International Space Station (NASA)

Member SPIE

Phillip W. Mange, Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division Scientific

Consultant to the Director of Research, Naval Research Laboratory (retired)

John E. Mansfield, Vice Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Kristanka Marinova, Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Chemistry Sofia

University, Bulgaria

Richard Marrus, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley

Fellow APS

John Martinis, Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara APS Fellow

David T. Marx, Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University

Joseph Maserjian, Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet

Propulsion Laboratory (retired)

John H. McAdoo, Aerospace Physicist Member IEEE, AAAS

Gene H. McCall, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) E. O.

Lawrence Award 1988 Former Chairman, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

Fellow AIAA, Associate Fellow Royal Institute of Navigation

Thomas A. McClelland, Vice President, Commercial Products Frequency Electronics,

Inc.

Harold Mirels, Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Fellow APS,

AIAA Member National Academy of Engineering

Jim Mitroy, Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology

Charles Darwin University, Australia APS Outstanding Referee: 2010

Michael Monce, Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College

Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union

37

Christopher R. Monroe, Bice Zorn Professor of Physics Joint Quantum Institute,

University of Maryland and NIST Chair-elect, APS Division of AMO Physics Executive

Committee, APS Topical Group on Quantum Information Fellow APS, Institute of

Physics

David S. Moore, R&D Scientist Los Alamos National Laboratory President, IUPAC

Analytical Chemistry Division (2002-2003) Los Alamos Fellows Prize 2009 Fellow APS;

Member IUPAC, ACS, Society for Advanced Spectroscopy

Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley Faculty

Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Principle Author, Ice Ages and

Astronomical Causes (Springer) Fellow APS, AAAS; MacArthur Fellow

Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS,

NYAS

Rodney W. Nichols, President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001)

Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990)

Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970)

Fellow AAAS, NYAS

Chad J. Njeim, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of New

Mexico

Gordon C. Oehler, Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Working Group

Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, Science Applications International

Corporation (1998-2004) National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and

Proliferation (1989-1992)

William P. Oliver, Professor of Physics Tufts University Life Member APS

Frank R. Paolini, Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford

(retired) Senior Member APS, Member IEEE

Byung Kyu Park, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of

California at Berkeley

Albert C. Parr, Chief, Optical Technology Division NIST (retired) Fellow APS;

Member OSA, SPIE

Daniel N. Payton III, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation

(1992-present) Eos Technologies (1984-1992) Technical Director of Nuclear Technology

Air Force Weapons Laboratory (1976-1984)

John T. Pearson, Research Assistant Microfluidics Group Brigham Young University

Member AIAA

Erik M. Pell, Xerox Corporation (retired) Author: From Dreams to Riches – The Story

of Xerography (Carlson) Edward Goodrich Acheson Medal (Electrochemical Society)

1986 President, Electrochemical Society (1980-1981) Fellow APS, Honorary Member

ECS, Senior Member IEEE

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Physicist (retired) Operations Evaluation Group, MIT US Naval

Ordnance Laboratory Senior Member APS

Richard S. Post, Chairman of the Board NEXX Systems, Inc. Fellow APS

Joseph F. Prince, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Mechanical Engineering

Brigham Young University

John X. Przybysz, Consulting Engineer Northrop Grumman Corporation Fellow IEEE

Donald Rapp, Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems, Jet Propulsion

Laboratory (retired) Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of

38

Texas (1973-1979) Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials

(Springer-Verlag) Fellow APS

Ned S. Rasor, Consulting Physicist Formerly, President and CEO, Rasor Associates, Inc.

Member IEEE, AIAA

Richard T. Rauch, NASA Stennis Space Center Life Member APS, Associate Fellow

AIAA

Michael F. Reusch, Partner, Computational Market Dynamics Formerly, Staff Scientist,

Grumman Aerospace Corporation Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

John E. Rhoads, Professor of Physics Midwestern State University (retired) Member

SPE

Harry I. Ringermacher Sr., Research Physicist General Electric Global Research

Center AIP "History of Physics in Industry" Participant at GE Sir William Herschel

Medal (American Academy of Thermology) Copper Black Award (American Mensa)

2003 and 2007

Stanley Robertson, Emeritus Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State

University

Berol Robinson, Principal Scientific Officer UNESCO (retired) Member AAPT, AAAS,

Association des Écologistes Pour le Nucléaire

Robert C. Rohr, Reactor Physicist Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (retired) Former

Adjunct Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Daniel J. Rogers, Staff Scientist Applied Information Sciences Department Johns

Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Member OSA

Kelly R. Roos, Professor of Physics Bradley University

John J. Ryan, President HEP Arts, Inc. (Advanced Software for IT) Member AAAS,

The Planetary Society

Isaac C. Sanchez, William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U.S. Department of

Commerce Medals 1980, 1983 Edward U. Condon Award (NIST) 1983; SPE

International Research Award 1996 Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow

APS

Raymond E. Sarwinski, President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc. Life Member APS

Kenneth V. Saunders, Senior Research Engineer and Project Leader RAND Corporation

(retired) Lead Author, Priority Setting and Strategic Sourcing in Naval

Research,Development and Technology Infrastructure (RAND) Life Member APS,

Member SIAM, Mathematical Association of America, AIAA

Nicola Scafetta, Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University Member

American Geophysical Union

Mark D. Semon, Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Bates College

Member American Academy of Forensic Scientists, American College of Forensic

Examiners

Thomas P. Sheahen, President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences

consulting) Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer)

Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78)

Arnold J. Sierk, Technical Staff Member Theoretical Division Los Alamos National

Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph Silverman, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials

Science and Engineering University of Maryland Fellow APS, ANS

James D. Simpson, Senior Scientist Argonne National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

39

S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia

First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, American

Geophysical Union

Frans W. Sluijter, Professor, Department of Applied Physics Eindhoven University of

Technology Former Chair, Plasma Physics Division, European Physics Society Former

Vice President, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Member Dutch Physical

Society, Institute of Physics UK

John R. Smith, Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of

Physics University of California at Davis Life Member APS

Hermann Statz, Raytheon Company (retired) Microwave Pioneer Award (IEEE) 2004

Fellow APS

Nick Steph, Chair, Department of Physics Franklin College Member AAPT, ACS D.

Scott Stewart Shao Lee Soo Professor Mechanical Science and Engineering University of

Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Fellow APS (Division of Fluid Dynamics), Fellow Institute

of Physics

Peter Stilbs, Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),

Stockholm, Sweden Life Member APS

Norman D. Stockwell, Senior Project Engineer, TRW (retired) Former Member of the

Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation Life Member APS, Member AAAS

Thomas F. Stratton, Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

William R. Stratton, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)

Member AEC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety Chair ANS Nuclear Reactor

Accident Study Fellow ANS

Szymon Suckewer, Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Director of

Plasma Science & Technology Program Princeton University Fellow APS, OSA

Ronald M. Sundelin, Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator

Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech Fellow

APS

Andrei Szilagyi, Formerly, Chief Scientist, Aura Systems, Inc. Chief Technologist,

Radiant Technology Corporation Chief Scientist, NanoMuscle Inc. Member MRS,

Electrochemical Society, TMS – The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society

Willard L. Talbert, Scientific Consultant (1993-present) Scientific Staff Member, Los

Alamos National Laboratory, 1976-1993 (retired) Professor of Physics, Iowa State

University (1961-1976) Fellow APS

Lu Ting, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,

New York University Lead Author, Vortex Dominated Flows (Applied Mathematical

Sciences, Springer) Member SIAM, AIAA, AAM

Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University Coauthor, The

Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

Salvatore Torquato, Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical

Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics Princeton

University 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics

Fellow APS

Rusty S. Towell, Professor of Physics Abilene Christian University Member IEEE

Edward S. Troy, Principal Engineer Aerospace Consulting Wireless, RF, microwave,

analog/DSP, and GPS circuits and systems Member IEEE, AAAS

Frederick L. Vook, Director (Emeritus), Physical and Chemical Sciences, Sandia

National Laboratories Author, Radiation Effects in Semiconductors (Plenum Press) Lead

40

Author, Report to the APS by the Study Group on Physics Problems Related to Energy

Technologies: Radiation Effects on Materials Fellow APS

Richard W. Vook, Professor of Physics Director, Solid State Science and Technology

Program Syracuse University (retired) Member AVS, Electron Microscopy Society of

America

William B. Walters Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland

John Simon Guggenheim Fellow (1986) ACS Award in Nuclear Chemistry (2001)

Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, University of Mainz (2002) Life Member APS,

Member ACS

John Weiner, Visiting Professor, University of Maryland CNST Visiting Fellow, NIST

Professeur des Universités Université Paul Sabatier (retired) Fellow APS, Member OSA

Steven J. Werkema, Deputy Head Fermilab Antiproton Source Department Fermi

National Accelerator Laboratory

Samuel A. Werner, Curators‘ Professor Emeritus The University of Missouri Guest

Researcher, NIST Fellow APS, AAAS

Bruce J. West, Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University Fellow APS

John B. West, Honorary Scientist, STFC Daresbury Laboratory Honorary Scientist,

International Board for UV Conferences Fellow APS, Member Institute of Physics, UK

Willard W. White, Senior Scientist, Division Director Mission Research Corporation

(retired) Life Member APS; Member AAAS, IEEE

Bruce R. Wienke, Program Manager Los Alamos National Laboratory President

Southwest Enterprises Inc. Author, Hyperbaric Physics and Bubble Mechanics (Best

Publishing) Fellow American Academy of Underwater Sciences

Jerry B. Wilhelmy, Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)

David C. Williams, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National

Laboratories (retired) Member AAAS, ACS, ANS Edward L. Wills Research Associate

Professor Emeritus Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham

Peter J. Wojtowicz, Group Head, Senior Member Technical Staff (retired) RCA Labs,

GE, Sarnoff Corporation Fellow APS

Gregory A Wright, Chief Technology Officer Antiope Associates LLC

Richard K. Wright, Senior Member of the Technical Staff Siemens Optoelectronic

Division

Ya-Hong Xie, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at

Los Angeles Senior Member IEEE, Member Materials Research Society

M. John Yoder, Principal Physicist The MITRE Corporation Life Member APS

Michael Zaezjev, Energy, Materials, and Telecommunications Center Institute National

de la Recherche´ Scientifique, Varrennes, Canada

Claude Zeller, Principal Fellow Pitney Bowles Inc. Member IEEE

Martin V. Zombeck, Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (retired)

Author, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

Coauthor, High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy of Cosmic Plasmas (Cambridge

University Press)

James L. Allen, Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing

Company (retired)

F. Paul Brady, Principal, BPF Investments/Charitable Investments Professor of Physics

University of California at Davis (retired) Senior Fulbright Scholar, Ford Foundation

Fellow, Fellow APS

41

Joseph F. Chiang, Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and

Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS

Stephen M. Curry, Director of Engineering, Dallas Semiconductor, Maxim Integrated

Products, Inc. (retired) Member OSA

Ian J. Fritz, Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award

1991, Basic Energy Sciences Sustained Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993,

NOVA Award 2001 (Lockheed Martin Corporation)

Dennis B. Hayes, Research Physicist, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratories, President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired),

Fellow APS

H. Richard Johnson, Co-Founder and Former CEO, Watkins-Johnson Company

(retired), Life Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

Karl F. Scheibner, Electro Optical Engineer, Senior Staff, Advanced Programs,

Strategic Missiles and Defense Systems, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

D. Scott Stewart, Shao Lee Soo Professor, Mechanical Science and Engineering,

University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Fellow APS (Division of Fluid Dynamics),

Fellow Institute of Physics

End Reprint of Open Letter

# #

42

In 2009, more than 100 international scientists rebuked President Obama's view of

man-made global warming. The scientists wrote: "Mr. President, your characterization

of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the

scientific debate is simply incorrect." The scientists noted that "there has been no net

global warming for over a decade" and "after controlling for population growth and

property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related

events." Full letter and full signatories below:

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating

climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate

change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have

been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade

now.1,2

After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no

increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models

forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4

Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and

the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect."

Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska

Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation

J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania

Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC

Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir

Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)

David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association

John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)

Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull

Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008

John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)

Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University

Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa,

Canada

Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society

Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)

Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action

Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate

Change

43

Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society

Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria

Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)

David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma

Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist

David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester

Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy

Conversion, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario

John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle

Upon Tyne, (retired)

Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology

Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society

Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates

Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)

Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig

Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics

Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)

Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa

James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)

Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford

Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition

William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University

Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute

Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University

Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University

Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)

Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)

Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)

Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth

Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.

Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo

A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists

Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global

Change

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)

Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University

Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)

Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)

Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)

David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And

Industrial Research

Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And

Technology Forum, South Africa

Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research

44

Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)

James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University

Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks

Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting

Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen

Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology

James F. Lea, Ph.D.

Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist

Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist

David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology

Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources

Working Group

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri

Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School

Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin

Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)

Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation

James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)

Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia

Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.

Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological

Institute, Norway

Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College

Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)

Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)

David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada

Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania

Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University

Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska

Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)

Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan

John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals

Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University

Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)

Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service

Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study

Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.

Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth

Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville

Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of

Reclamation

George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services

Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)

Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.

Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco

45

Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy

Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)

Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate

Change

Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University

Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University

Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate

Change

Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists

Footnotes

1. Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press:

DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.

2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI:

10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.

3. Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005:

DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.

4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI:

10.1002/joc.1651.

End Reprint of Open Letter

# #

46

A December 8 2009 Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General garnered 166

international skeptical scientist signatures and was still accepting endorsers into

February 2010. The 166 scientists declared “the science is NOT settled.” The

scientists wrote in part: ―It is not the responsibility of ‗climate realist‘ scientists to prove

that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who

propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the

supposed ‗problem‘, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent

climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change

will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.‖ The full Open Letter is

reproduced below. [Note: There are many duplicate names included in this open letter

that have already appeared in this report.] (LINK) (LINK) Full Open Letter:

Open Letter to UN Secretary-General

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations.New York, NY'United

States of America

December 8, 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‗negative discovery‘ - the more we learn about

this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we

know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy

decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that

human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural

causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data

demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed

in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean

currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge

the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to

produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous

human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible

future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes

for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused

climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the

natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are

having a dangerous impact on global climate;

47

3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the

natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing

human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal

communities;

5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate

change as they have done in the past;

7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and

related to increases in human GHG emissions;

8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to

anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those

changes;

9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are

increasing in severity and frequency;

10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface

temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‗climate realist‘ scientists to prove that dangerous

human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose

that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed

‗problem‘, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent

climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic

change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

Signed by:

Signed by Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in climate Science:

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the

Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the

ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian

Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia

Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative,

Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director,

International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,

Alaska, U.S.A.

J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of

Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on

Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.

Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research

Director, Dunedin, New Zealand

48

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the

impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute,

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor,

University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada

Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil

Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues

and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.

Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman

of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation

with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz,

Poland

Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd),

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College,

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg,

Germany (Now Deceased)

David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental

campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon.

Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University,

Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United

Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The

Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.

Richard J. Becherer, Ph.D. (University of Rochester), optical physicist, co-author

standard reference book "Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry", former

Member of the Technical Staff - MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct

Professor - University of Connecticut, Millis, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Edwin X Berry, BS (Engineering, Caltech), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), PhD

(Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180, American

Meteorological Society; Director, climate Physics LLC; Past positions: Edwin X

Berry & Associates, President, Atmospheric Research & Technology; Program

Manager for Weather Modification, RANN, National Science Foundation; Chief

Scientist, Desert Research Inst airborne research facility, Bigfork, Montana, U.S.A.

M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of

Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India

49

Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull

University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-

science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom

Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of

Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Algéria. Author of The Great Season

Climatic Oscillation, I. RE. PHY. 1(2007) 53, The Great Season Climatic Oscillation

and the Global Warming, Global Conference On Global Warming, July 6-10, 2008,

Istanbul, Turkey and Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA) and the Mean

Earth's Ground Temperature, arXiv:0811.0357 (November 2008)

William M. Briggs, BS (Meteorology), MS (Atmospheric Science), PhD (Statistics),

Member American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American

Association of Statisticians, Institute for Mathematical Statistics, published dozens

of peer-reviewed papers including in the Journal of climate, Member of AMS's

Probability and Statistics Committee, Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review,

New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology,

Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York),

District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks,

Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.

James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada

Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research

involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States

Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology

consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta,

Canada

Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook

University, Townsville, Australia

Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to

determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas,

U.S.A.

George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus

Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern

50

California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

Petr Chylek, PhD, Adjunct Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science,

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada - currently Laboratory Fellow, Remote

Sensing Team Leader, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos National

Laboratory, New Mexico, Fellow of American Geophysical Union and the Optical

Society of America, Member of the American Meteorological Society and Canadian

Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, now residing in Los Alamos, New

Mexico, U.S.A.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of

Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS

(Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US

Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now

residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.

Michael Coffman, PhD (ecosysytems analysis and climate Change), CEO of

Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor,

Maine, U.S.A..

Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of

Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS,

astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction

long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom

Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather

Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert

reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom

Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct

Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria,

Victoria, British Colombia, Canada

Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.

Joseph D‟Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies

(NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International climate and Environmental

Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor

Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel,

Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University

51

of Auckland, New Zealand

Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior

Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand

James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in

Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences,

University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant,

Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England

Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of

the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography,

Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington,

University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.

Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The climate. Science

and Politics (2009)

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of

Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Christopher Essex, PhD, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of

the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario, Canada

David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc,

mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer

and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian climate

Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-

environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark

Terrence F Flower, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, St. Catherine University,

taught courses in climate Change, took students to Antarctic and tropics, St. Paul,

Minnesota, U.S.A.

Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental

measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle,

Australia

52

Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind,

electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and

Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i

at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.

David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences,

Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden

Katya Georgieva, MSc (Physics of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Space, specialty

Meteorology), PhD (Solar-Terrestrial Physics - PhD thesis on solar influences on

global climate changes), Associate Professor, Head of group "Solar dynamics and

global climate change" in the Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory at the

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, head of project "Solar activity influences of

weather and climate" of the scientific plan of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,

member of the "Climate changes" council of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,

Regional coordinator of the Balkan, Black sea and Caspian sea countries and

member of the European Steering Committee for the International Heliophysical

Year 2007-2008, deputy editor-in-chief of the international scientific journal "Sun

and Geosphere", Bulgaria

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director

and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.

Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics)

habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik,

Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig,

Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects

Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys., 2009

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical

pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma

Plata, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.),

Secretary General KTH International climate Seminar 2006 and climate analyst

and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden

Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments,

Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological

Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.

Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC,

author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of climate Change 2001,

Wellington, New Zealand

53

William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science,

Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins,

Colorado, U.S.A.

Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in

Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los

Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering,

modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is

interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling),

Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of

Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate Change research), Member

- National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and

Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The

Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.

Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility,

Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.

James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and

PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric

Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.

Douglas Hoyt, B.S. (Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), M.S. (Astro-

Geophysics, University of Colorado), co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in

climate Change, previously senior scientist at Raytheon (MODIS instrument

development), with earlier employment at NOAA, NCAR, World Radiation Center

and the Sacramento Peak Observatory, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, U.S.A.

Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of

Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study

of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and

Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent climate Research Group,

Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of

Physics, London), U.K.

54

Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science

Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core

CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.

Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water

Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green

River, Wyoming, U.S.A.

Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis,

Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied

Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.

Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor

emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography,

Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric

Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of

Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand

Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist,

Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member

"Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada

Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,

Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,

California, U.S.A.

William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia‟s National climate

Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization‟s Commission for

Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia

Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Meteorology), Theoretical Meteorology, Research

Faculty, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska,

U.S.A.

Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional

meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.

Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct

Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends

of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

55

David R. Legates, PhD, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.

Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water

hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Leslie R. Lemon, Research Associate Meteorologist, Cooperative Institute for

Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS), University of Oklahoma, visiting

professor for the China Meteorological Administration, 2001 President of the USA

National Weather Association, Independence, MO and Norman, OK, U.S.A.

Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania

State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth,

Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired,

Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen,

Colorado, U.S.A.

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil,

Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia,

Missouri, U.S.A.

Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of

Berlin, Germany

Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate

Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden

Wayne Martin, Ph.D. (Physical Oceanography), graduate studies in oceanic

circulation, Senior Research Scientist working on Arctic ice dynamics, past research

in arctic physics, CEO Research, Analysis and Engineering, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia,

U.S.A.

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate

Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley

Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.

Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre,

Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway

H. Michael "Mike" Mogil, B.S., M.S. (Meteorology, Florida State University),

Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, on-air

expert on climate Change (WGUF-radio, Naples, FL), 28 years forecast and

research experience NOAA/NWS; 25 years weather education; author of Extreme

Weather - 300 page trade book, including chapter on climate Change and How the

Weatherworks, Naples, Florida, U.S.A.

56

Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine

meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological

Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter

University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and climate), Emeritus Professor of

Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Robert Neff, BSc (meteorology, Penn State), M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis

University), former Weather Officer (Lt. Col., USAF); Contractor support to NASA

Meteorology Satellites, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.

Richard Newsome, PhD, Environmental Biology (teaches climatology, climate-

related geology and environmental biology), Professor, Beloit College, Wisconsin,

U.S.A.

John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian

climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia

Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on

"Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research

area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman

of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography,

Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.

Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc

(Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations,

Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand

Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research

Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus

Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting

Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology),

Carleton University, Chair - International climate Science Coalition, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada

Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric

57

Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide;

Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Oleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS (mathematics and atmospheric physics - St. Petersburg

State University), PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics), principal scientist,

Main Geophysical Observatory, St. Petersburg, Russia

Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS

(Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather

Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of

the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and

planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and

Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the

Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of

the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian climate Science Coalition, Member

Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus

Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,

Georgia, U.S.A.

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University,

retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden,

The Netherlands

Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University),

Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography,

Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific

Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

William M. Schaffer, BS, Ph.D. (Princeton), Guggenheim Memorial Fellow,

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (special interest in nonlinear

dynamics and climate), University of Arizona, U.S.A.

Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-

58

Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist,

science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics),

Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom

Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California,

U.S.A.

Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology),

specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in

modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric

CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of

Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and

Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource

Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Stanley J. Smith, BA, MS Physics (theoretical physics, Washington State

University), Statistical Detection Theory (University of Iowa), Consultant -

algorithm based atmospheric disturbance and anomaly prediction, vertical wind

and vapor radiometer/radar measurement analysis, isotope identification

algorithms (Constellation Tech Inc.), Lakewood Ranch, Florida, U.S.A.

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System

Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in

coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of

Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member

of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair

of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in climate Variability", International

seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden

Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State

University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint

Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.

George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology,

University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied climate Services,

LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of

59

State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.

Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section,

Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands

Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands

Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane

University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.

M. Ray Thomasson, Ph.D. (Geology and Geophysics), practicing for 50 years,

studying Global climate Change for 5 years, Past President of the American

Geological Institute, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.

Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah),

President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm

analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument,

Colorado, U.S.A.

Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory),

Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg,

Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects

Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009

Brian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid

dynamics spacilaization) at the University of Maryland, Technical manager at US

Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical

referee for the US Department of Energy's Office of Science programs in climate

and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs,

Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Tatiana V. Valentinovna, MS. (Chemistry; Moscow State Univ., USSR); Ph.D.

(Biophysics and Applied Mathematics; Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,

USSR), Research Associate - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of

Arizona, U.S.A.

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and

paleoclimatologist, climate Change consultant, Geoscience Research and

Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand

A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam

Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European

Association of Science Editors

Michael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology (macrometeorology, long-term

forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological

University, St. Petersburg, Russia

60

Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography,

Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden

Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement),

retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada

Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief

meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies

custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast

video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to

photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S.,

U.S.A.

Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist –

Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists,

Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.

James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional

Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina,

U.S.A.

Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and

Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of

Urbino, Urbino, Italy

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of

Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki,

Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical

Advisory Board member - climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery,

Virginia, U.S.A.

Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist,

Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic

Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James

Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF

(retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.

Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences

Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical

Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program

61

Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon,

U.S.A.

End Reprint of Open Letter

# # #

62

Prominent scientists from 40 countries signed the Manhattan Declaration on

Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

The 2008 declaration states in part, ―Global climate has always changed and always will,

independent of the actions of humans, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but

rather a necessity for all life; the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change

are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated

assertions of a supposed ‗consensus‘ among climate experts are false.‖ The declaration

concludes, ―There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial

activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.‖

A sampling of scientists signing the declaration as of June 19, 2008, are listed below. The

signatory process has been open for two years and continues to add new scientists.

Full Statement:

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change - “Global warming” is not a global

crisis: We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists,

policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City,

participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Resolving that

scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method; Affirming that

global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of

humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all

life; Recognizing that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the

subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated

assertions of a supposed ‗consensus‘ among climate experts are false; Affirming that

attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual

citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no

appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will

markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to

inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering; Noting

that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder: Hereby

declare: That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous

misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving

humanity‘s real and serious problems. That there is no convincing evidence that CO2

emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future

cause catastrophic climate change. That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and

costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions

of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing

nations without affecting climate. That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-

effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert

the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of

their peoples. That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis. Now, therefore,

we recommend – That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works

such as ―An Inconvenient Truth‖. That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions

intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith. Agreed at New York, 4

March 2008.

63

As of December 2010, there were 712 signers and counting.

712 signers -- Selected names were chosen for inclusion in this report.

Signers: Clive Stevens, BS, MSc, D.I.C. FR Meteorogical Society, Weather Forecasting

(since 1971), Private Companies around the world, Baku, Azerbaijan; Gordon Evans,

BS (Meteorology, Texas A&M University), MS (Soil Science, Texas A&M University),

30 yrs as environmental consultant on natural earth systems and processes and industrial

pollution, including management of several advanced atmospheric modeling and

measurement projects, Environmental Manager, The Texas A&M University System,

College Station, Texas, U.S.A.; Oscar Fann, College Degree, Media (television), Chief

Meteorologist, WTVY-TV (CBS), Dothan, Alabama, U.S.A.; Gary Kubat, BS

(Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18

years, O\'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.; Joseph Kunc, PhD, Molecular Physics, Professor,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.; James Kurtz, PhD (Inorganic

Chemistry, Syracuse University), Postdoctoral (Chemical Kinetics, Purdue University),

Industrial Research and Development, Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S.A.; Rune B. Larsen, PhD

(Geology, Geochemistry), Associate Professor, Norwegian University of Science and

Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; , PhD, meteorologist and air-quality

consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Asmunn Moene,

PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological

Institute, Oslo, Norway; M. R. Morgan, PhD, Cdr., FRMS, climate consultant, former

meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research

scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova

Scotia, Canada; Travis Littlechilds, PhD (Geology), MSc (Environmental Sciences),

Geomorphography, Climate Patterns, The British Columbia Institute of Environmental

Sciences, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; John Llewellyn, Meteorology, Airport

Meteorologist, NOAA NWS (USWB), retired, Ellensburg, WA, U.S.A.; Björn

Malmgren, PhD, University Professor, Paleoclimate Science, retired, Lerum, Sweden;

Emmanuel Malterre, B. Eng., Professional Geophysicist (APEGGA), Calgary, Alberta,

Canada; John Marshall, Dip. Geosci (Open), retired, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, United

Kingdom; Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, University

of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; William R. Bennett, BS, MS, M (AAM), Ms (AAM), Director

for The Kentucky Science Teachers' Association, Professor of Chemistry and

Microbiology, St, Catherine College and The University of Kentucky, St. Catherine,

Kentucky, U.S.A.; Roger Burtner, PhD (Harvard University), MS (Stanford University),

Former National Science Foundation Fellow, Fellow Geological Society of America,

research geologist/geochemist, Consulting geologist, former research scientist, Chevron

Oil Field Research Co, R. L. Burtner & Associates, Fullerton, California, U.S.A.;

Elizabeth Innes, PhD, Scientist, Senior Chemist, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada; Olav M. Kvalheim, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Bergen,

Bergen, Norway; Erwin Lalik, PhD (crystallography), materials science and heterogeous

catalysis, Institute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry, Polish Academy of Science,

Krakow, Poland; Endel Lippmaa, Prof.Dr.habil (Physics, Chemistry), Chairman -

Energy Council of the Estonian Academy of Science, Tallinn, Estonia; James Weeg, BS

(Geology), MS (Env. Science), Professional Geologist, Hydrologist, Associate Professor,

Environmental Geology, Geologist Advent Environmental Inc., Mount Pleasant, South

Carolina, U.S.A.; Larry D. Agenbroad, Emeritus Professor of Geology & Quaternary

Studies, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., Director, Mammoth

Site of Hot Springs, Hot Springs, South Dakota, U.S.A.; M.I. Bhat, Professor (Tectonics,

64

Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir), Sprinagar, Jammu &

Kashmir, India; Vedat Shehu, Prof. Dr. Eng., Geologist, Engineering Geology,

Tectonics, Geoingineering, Sharon, Massachusetts, U.S.A. and Professor

"Geoingineering Research Unit" in Tirana, Albania; Joseph Silverman, Fellow APS,

ANS, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Science & Engineering

Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.; Jan-Erik Solheim,

Professor of Astrophysics, Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo,

Oslo, Norway; Gösta Walin, Professor, oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg

University, Göteborg, Sweden; Richard Becherer PhD (Optics, University of

Rochester), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), BS (Physics, Boston College); Ahmed

Boucenna PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat

Abbas University, Setif, Algéria; Antonio Brambati PhD, Emeritus Professor

(sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences

(DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization: climate change as determined by

Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, Italy; Arthur Chadwick PhD (Molecular Biology),

Research Professor, Department of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist

University, Climate Specialties: dendrochronology (determination of past climate states

by tree ring analysis), palynology (same but using pollen as a climate proxy),

paleobotany and botany; Keene, Texas, U.S.A.; Cornelia Codreanova Diploma in

Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec

University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany; James E Dent B.Sc., FCIWEM,

C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on

Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom; Terrence F. Flower

PhD, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, St. Catherine University, studied and taught

physics of climate (focus on Arctic and Antarctic); Lars Franzén PhD (Physical

Geography), Professor, Physical Geography at Earth Sciences Centre, University of

Gothenburg, Areas of Specialization: Palaeoclimate from global peatland and Chinese

loess studies; Katya Georgieva MSc (Physics of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Space,

specialty Meteorology), PhD (Solar-Terrestrial Physics - PhD thesis on solar influences

on global climate changes), Associate Professor, Head of group "Solar dynamics and

global climate change" in the Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory at the Bulgarian

Academy of Sciences, head of project "Solar activity influences of weather and climate"

of the scientific plan of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, member of the "Climate

changes" council of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Regional coordinator of the

Balkan, Black sea and Caspian sea countries and member of the European Steering

Committee for the International Heliophysical Year 2007-2008, deputy editor-in-chief of

the international scientific journal "Sun and Geosphere", Bulgaria; Larry Irons BS

(Geology), MS (Geology), Sr. Geophysicist at FairfieldNodal (Areas of Specialization:

Paleoclimate), Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.; Leif Kullman PhD (Physical geography,

plant ecology, landscape ecology), Professor, Physical geography, Department of

Ecology and Environmental science, Umeå University, Areas of Specialization:

Paleoclimate (Holocene to the present), glaciology, vegetation history, impact of modern

climate on the living landscape, Umeå, Sweden; David Manuta Ph.D.

(Inorganic/Physical Chemistry, SUNY Binghamton), FAIC, Climate Specialties: Gas

Phase Infrared Studies, Thermodynamics of Small Molecule Formation (e.g., CO2, HF,

and H2O), Chairman of the Board, The American Institute of Chemists; Irina Melnikova

PhD (Physics & Mathematics), Head of the Laboratory for Physics of the Atmosphere

INENCO RAN, specialization: radiative regime of the cloudy atmosphere; Stanley

65

Penkala BS (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of PA), PhD (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of

PA.), Asst. Prof. Air Engineering and Industrial Hygiene, University of Pittsburgh GSPH

(1970-1973), Environmental Scientist, DeNardo & McFarland Weather Services (1973-

1980), Air Science Consultants, Inc. (VP 1980-1995, President 1995-Present), Areas of

Specialization: Air Dispersion Modeling, Anthropogenic Sources of Global CO2, Quality

Assurance in Air Pollution Measurements, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.; Oleg M. Pokrovsky

BS, MS, PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics - St. Petersburg State University,

1970), Dr. in Phys. and Math Sciences (1985), Professor in Geophysics (1995), principal

scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory (RosHydroMet), St. Petersburg, Russia; Oleg

Raspopov Doctor of Science and Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Professor

- Geophysics, Senior Scientist, St. Petersburg Filial (Branch) of N.V.Pushkov Institute of

Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowaves Propagetion of RAS (climate

specialty: climate in the past, particularly the influence of solar variability), Editor-in-

Chief of journal "Geomagnetism and Aeronomy" (published by Russian Academy of

Sciences), St. Petersburg, Russia; Jan-Erik Solheim MSc (Astrophysics), Professor,

Institute of Physics, University of Tromso, Norway (1971-2002), Professor (emeritus),

Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Norway (1965-1970, 2002-

present), climate specialties: sun and periodic climate variations; Roger Tanner PhD

(Analytical Chemistry, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana), 40-yr career in

atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science at Tennessee Valley

Authority, Desert Research Institute, Reno, and Brookhaven National Lab, Climate

Specialties: atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science, Florence,

Alabama, U.S.A.; Edward M. Tomlinson MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology,

University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme

rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service),

Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.; Michael G. Vershovsky Ph.D. in meteorology

(macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State

Hydrometeorological University; Bob Zybach PhD (Oregon State University (OSU),

Environmental Sciences Program, EPA-sponsored peer-reviewed research on carbon

sequestration in coniferous forests -- mostly in relation to climate history and quality of

climate predictive models), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology,

Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry);

Below are additional endorsers of the International Climate Science Coalition's skeptical

Manhattan Declaration who were present at the 2008 conference. ENDORSERS OF

THE DECLARATION PRESENT AT THE CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY The

following endorsers of The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change were physically

present at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which took place in

New York City on March 2 - 4, 2008 at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square

Hotel. Selected names for inclusion in this report: John Chadbourne PhD

Environmental Engineer Essroc Cement Corp Italcementi Group Nazareth Pennsylvania

U.S.A.; James Rust PhD (Nuclear Engineering Purdue University) MEng (Nuclear MIT)

BSc (Chemical Purdue) Retired professor Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta

Georgia U.S.A; Wojciech J. Szalecki PhD (Organic Chemistry) senior scientist formerly

University of Lodz Poland and University of Colorado now in Eugene Oregon U.S.A.;

End 2010 Report

# #

66

67

Complete Reprint of March 2009 Updated

Report:

U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over

Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &

2009

(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made

Global Warming Claims”)

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)

www.epw.senate.gov/minority Original Release: December 11, 2008

Presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland

Updated: December 22, 2008; January 27, 2009 & March 16, 2009

(Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made

Global Warming Claims in 2007”) Contact: Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov (202) 224-5762 Matthew Dempsey – Matt_Dempsey@Inhofe.Senate.gov (202) 224-9797 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

68

U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over

Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &

2009

INTRODUCTION:

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe

challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007‘s

groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called

global warming ―consensus‖ -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent

international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have

now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and

growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52)

who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream

of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments

challenged the UN‘s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is

settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be

challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic

warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed

studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited

―Hockey Stick‖; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun;

Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland‘s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes;

Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme

weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and

rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the year the

―consensus‖ collapsed. Russian scientists ―rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may

be responsible for global warming‖. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a

―considerable presence‖ of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists

countered the UN IPCC, declaring: ―Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate‖.

India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded

the UN IPCC ―be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,‖ and a canvass of

more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is

―settled.‖ A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 ―showed 90 per cent of

the participants do not believe the IPCC report.‖

69

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of

the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific

opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore.

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the

Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices

of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists

overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even

dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's

William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists

serving as ―consensus busters.‖ A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a

―growing accumulation‖ of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the

―science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade

legislation.‖ Canada‘s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that ―the number of

climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.‖ New York Times environmental reporter

Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a

numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all

sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet

Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather

than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in

parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr.

William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological

Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described

―absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published

that explored non-‗consensus‘ views.‖ In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the

behavior as ―really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was

shocked.‖ (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made

global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists.

LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and

intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700

international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for

Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can

speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that

man‟s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely

upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface

system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to

70

receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190

studies and has been called ―among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.‖

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to

know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC

Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical

chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn‟t listen to others. It doesn‟t

have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on

scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist

Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported

International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future

warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi

University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace

member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a

fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”

- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.

Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar

interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based

on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for

example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of

Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of

scientists who don‟t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government

Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of

NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,

as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide

scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical

and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

―After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics

to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,

who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American

Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of

Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers

higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large

71

number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished

without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the

U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian

geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about

man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” -

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at

Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of

Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American

Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the

National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less

moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary

balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr.

Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was

once Hungary‘s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet

is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee

the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who

has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in

Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself

solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate

changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in

man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC

committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation

between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports

and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have

distorted the science.‖ - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip

Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed

publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting

warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.‖ - Atmospheric

physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in

Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give

some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” -

Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,

served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

72

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present

alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major

businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” -

Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the

Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist

knows this, but it doesn‟t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps

Europeans in the driver‟s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda

Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu

University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is

something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of

the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology

Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate

may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former

Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,

Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by

human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly

inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored

more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The „global warming scare‟ is being used as a political tool to increase government

control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the

Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack

Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological

Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The

global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the

millennium…which is why „global warming‟ is now called „climate change.‟” -

Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at

the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone

man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data

refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?‖ - Dr. G

LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia‘s CSIRO. (The full

quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#

73

This Senate report is not a ―list‖ of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of

each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured

in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties

and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional

affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who

publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name,

country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own

words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and

original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public

statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields,

including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology;

oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics,

engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes

for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of

the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists

hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for

Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the

Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the

Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of

Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the

Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of

Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University

of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of

La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of

Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of

London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement

does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by

Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process

for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) &

(LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for

Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a

process described as more closely resembling a political party‘s convention platform battle,

not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for

Policymakers ―distorted‖ the scientists work. ―I have found examples of a Summary saying

precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,‖ explained South Afican Nuclear

Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author

who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N.

Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

74

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements

endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the

NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate

statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these

institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-

file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist

Exposes „Corrupted Science‟ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific

"consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during

the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to

mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the

signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more

than 700 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra

Pachauri implied that there were only ―about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.

(LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change

are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the

moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe

that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who

"believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 -

LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien

said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific

skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil

fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as

"one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by

industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists

as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by

those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has

about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a

prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses

no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While

some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try

to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels,

75

Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so

someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's

not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of

skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the

climate debate "over" and added ―it's completely immoral, even, to question‖ the UN‘s

scientific ―consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer

said it was ―criminally irresponsible‖ to ignore the urgency of global warming on

November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006:

"After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global

warming. (LINK)

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally

rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate

variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model

predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears

and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

#

76

Scientists Speak: More Than 700 International Scientists

Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Original Release December 11, 2008. Update March 16, 2009 [Note: The 2007 Report

is reprinted in full following the 2009 report]

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly

said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of

views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made

global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-

coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was

in charge of South Africa‟s Chamber of Mines‟ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a

former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in

environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd has served as President of the South

African Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Federation of Societies of Professional

Engineers, and the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of Southern Africa.

Lloyd, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, currently serves as an

honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape

Town. Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. ―I have grave difficulties in finding any but

the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,‖ Lloyd wrote to

EPW on January 18, 2008. ―The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of

the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative

effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying

stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between

the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have

studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a

model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,‖ Lloyd

wrote. ―I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed

on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the

Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted

the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the

scientists said,‖ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire has

taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be

undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. Wolf recently declared he was

skeptical of man-made climate fears. ―Several things have contributed to my skepticism

about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a

very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of

warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood,‖ Wolf

wrote EPW on January 10, 2008. ―Also, many, many of the supporters (or believers) of

human induced warming have not read the IPCC report AND Al Gore is NOT a climate

scientist!‖ Wolf added. He also rejected the claim that most scientists agree mankind is

77

driving a ―climate crisis.‖ ―I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are

naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming,‖ Wolf added. (LINK)

Dr. Paul Berenson, an M.I.T-educated physicist, was the executive secretary of the

Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Scientific Advisor to

NATO‟s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to

the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Berenson, who describes himself as a “scientific truth seeker," has published about a

dozen peer-reviewed studies in the field of thermodynamics, power, fluid mechanics,

and heat transfer. Berenson believes that man-made global warming fears have no

objective scientific basis. “Earth is in the final stages of a typical 10,000 year plus

interglacial when both atmospheric temperature and CO2 content tend to increase long

term from natural causes, as they have after every ice age. The next major stage is the start

of a new ice age which hopefully is more than a thousand years in the future,‖ Berenson

wrote in a February 2008 commentary. ―Man has been putting increasingly large amounts

of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age and rapidly increasing

the last 60 years as shown in all the references. However, the amount of CO2 man has

added to the atmosphere is less than 1 % of the CO2 that is there from natural causes,‖

Berenson explained. ―Current atmospheric temperatures and CO2 content are no higher

than they have been at various times during the past million years. The so-called Climate

Optimum 1000 to 1300 A.D. was 1-3 degrees C warmer than now, and apparently provided

better living conditions for humans, animals, and vegetation. For example, Greenland was

green and habitable by farmers. Water vapor (H2O) is the primary greenhouse gas,

contributing roughly 80 % of the greenhouse effect. Without the warming effect of the

greenhouse gases, the Earth would be roughly 10 degrees cooler, and probably

uninhabitable by humans. It has been estimated that the warming effect of CO2 is roughly

one thousandth that of water vapor,‖ he added. ―The analytical models used to predict

higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not

predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C

from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not

valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric

currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc,‖ Berenson concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

David Packham is a former principle research scientist with Australia‟s CSIRO, a

senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University in Australia, and an

officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, as well as author of numerous

scientific papers, who dissented in 2008. ―I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality

of the science being applied to the global warming question,‖ Packham, who now consults

in fire management, told EPW on May 3, 2008. ―This lack of comfort comes from many

directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed

values for particulate radiation absorption; The failure to consider the role of particulates

from biomatter burning; The lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global

warming models as conclusive evidence; The lack of transparency and obscuration of the

critical weaknesses in the GCMs,‖ Packham explained. ―Along with these discomforts goes

an observation that research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case

mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data

gathering. There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or

evidence. It is as if one is doing one's colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and

78

perhaps derailing the gravy train. The effect of the group think is creating a corporate data

gathering mind set amongst our young researchers that I think is dangerous,‖ he said. ―As

you can see there are many reasons that I would like to join my dissenting colleagues, some

scientific and some social and political but all of them are sincerely held,‖ he added. ―The

global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a

PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, has authored more than 190 studies and has

been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years” by

atmospheric scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Simpson declared she was ―skeptical‖ of

catastrophic man-made warming in 2008. ―Since I am no longer affiliated with any

organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,‖ Simpson wrote in a

public letter on February 27, 2008. ―The main basis of the claim that man‘s release of

greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to

watch the weather forecasts,‖ Simpson explained. ―But as a scientist I remain skeptical,‖

she added. [Note: Joanne Simpson died in 2010] (LINK)

Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray is the former head of the Space Services branch at the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in

NOAA‟s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories.

Gray also served as an aviation meteorologist for the United States Air Force. Gray

asserted that ―climate change is a natural occurrence‖ and dissented from the view that

mankind faces a ―climate crisis‖ in 2007. ―I was awarded my MS in meteorology from

Florida State University and I became interested in paleoclimatology,‖ Gray wrote to EPW

on December 25, 2007. ―Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this

time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over

geologic time,‖ Gray explained. ―I am sure that the concept of a ‗Global Temperature‘ is

nonsense,‖ he added. ―The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global

warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,‖ Gray concluded.

Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of

Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, has

authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Stilbs

coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about man-

made climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006 that ―by the final panel discussion

stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement‖ about several key points

regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists concluded, ―There is

no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The

global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic

carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global

temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected

from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued

global warming since 1998.‖ Stilbs also noted, ―There is no reliable evidence to support

that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the

‗Mann hockey-stick curve‘ are by now totally discredited.‖ Stilbs noted that the team of

international scientists concluded: ―There is no doubt that the science behind ‗the climate

issue‘ is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there

79

is no credibility for arguments such as ‗there is no other explanation‘ [than anthropogenic

generation of carbon dioxide]. This must be remembered when making future political

decisions related to these matters.‖ (LINK) Stilbs also was one of the signatories of the

December 13, 2007 letter critical of the UN IPCC‘s climate view. ―These [IPCC]

Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts

approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC

contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified

to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The

summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,"

the letter Stilbs signed explained. (LINK)

Geography professor Dr. Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University oversees the

university‟s meteorology program and was named to a key post at the UN‟s World

Meteorological Organization in 2007. Cerveny, who has written nearly 100 scientific

papers and magazine articles, is in charge of developing a global weather archive for

the UN. He was also a contributing author to the skeptical climate change book

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by climatologist Dr.

Patrick Michaels. Cerveny rejected catastrophic fears of man-made climate change in

2007. "I don't think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic,‖ Cerveny said according

to an October 7, 2007 article. "Hopefully, our grandkids are going to have a lot better

weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions

we're just in the process of asking," Cerveny explained. (LINK) & (LINK)

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA‟s

Apollo 7. was awarded the NASA Exceptional Distinguished Service Medal and Navy

Astronaut Wings and is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of

the American Astronautical Society. (Bio Link) Cunningham, a long time skeptic, again

rejected climate fears in 2008. ―It doesn‘t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one

of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political

activist who spreads fear even when NASA‘s own data contradict him,‖ Cunningham wrote

in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. ―NASA should be at the

forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over

human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming

just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized

science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being

ignored in favor of emotions and politics,‖ he explained. ―I do see hopeful signs that some

true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let‘s hope that NASA can focus

the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an

economic disaster on ourselves,‖ he added. ―The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a

minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for

95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity

responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are

largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world

warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because

we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the

seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made

that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans,‖ he

concluded. (LINK)

80

José Ramón Arévalo, Professor of Ecology at the University of La Laguna in Spain,

dissented from climate fears in 2008. ―Climate warming is more an ideology, that I have

read is call "Climatism"... so, as an ideology is perfect to me, the problem is when

administrators become members of this sect, and then they have to spend millions in

demonstrating their ideology,‖ Professor Arévalo wrote to EPW on December 7, 2008.

Professor Arévalo held an event at the university in July 2008 that proclaimed man-made

global warming ―is not happening.‖ Arévalo ―refuted the usual claims that extreme weather

conditions are already increasing, or that more forest fires were occurring,‖ according to a

July 2008 article. The article continued, identifying another skeptic: “Professor of

Geography at the Madrid Complutense University, Maria Eugenia Peréz, spoke about

the actual temperature measurements around the globe. Peréz recalled that most

temperatures are recorded in urban areas where microclimates can be warmer, and the

reduction of the number of stations at high latitudes since the collapse of the USSR, both of

which could bias data upwards. She also commented on the reliability of some data, and its

short period of collection (some stations only for 50 years), but then showed that the

general trend in the last 10 years has been slight cooling. This was after a cool period of

around 1940-1970, which was followed by the rapid rise in temperatures to the end of the

nineties which caused scientists to start thinking that global warming was happening.

Peréz warned against drawing conclusions about climate change from data sets of less

than three sets of 30 years.‖ (LINK)

Paul C. Knappenberger, a senior researcher with New Hope Environmental Services,

has published numerous peer-reviewed studies related to climate change, including a

2006 study questioning the linkage between global warming and severe hurricanes.

Knappenberger also serves as administrator for the skeptical climate change website

www.WorldClimateReport.com. The website‘s stated goal is to ―point out the

weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as ‗proof‘ of disastrous

warming.‖ The website also describes itself as the ―definitive and unimpeachable source

for what [the journal] Nature now calls the ‗mainstream skeptic‘ point of view, which is

that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest

change over the next 100 years.‖ (LINK)

Meteorologist Peter R. Leavitt, President of Weather Information, Inc., who served

on the National Research Council‟s Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate until

2008, is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, former chairman of the American

Meteorological Society‟s (AMS) Board of Industrial Meteorology, and recipient of the

AMS Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Advance of Applied Meteorology.

Leavitt also dissented publicly from man-made climate fears in 2008. ―Skepticism in regard

to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) does not mean that the opposite is true, only

that there is insufficient hard evidence to conclude that AGW is a significant factor in

climate if it is a factor at all. Progress in science is driven by skepticism. Dogmatism more

often inhibits progress than fosters it,‖ Leavitt wrote to EPW on December 8, 2008. ―There

are numerous reasons to support a skeptical viewpoint. Most of the proponents of AGW

rely on computer models to make their case. Very little substantive work has been done in

showing that the magnitude of the influence of CO2 on climate change suggested by the

various models can be derived directly through the application of first principles. There is

considerable evidence that there are grievous shortcomings in the quality of the data

81

especially with regards to the accuracy and representativeness of the surface temperature

record acquired from both inland and ocean areas and upon which the various models

depend,‖ Leavitt explained. ―There is considerable evidence that calls into question not

only the quality but the relevance of certain proxy data used to construct a detailed and

Global paleo-climatic record. There is considerable evidence to call into question the

competence and possibly the integrity of those engaged in the analysis of such data which

includes the abuse and misuse of statistics, the failure to maintain or properly archive the

raw data, and the reluctance to provide to outside investigators such basic items as the

notes, methodology and algorithms used to reach the conclusions expressed in their

published assertions,‖ Leavitt wrote. ―The peer review process as applied to AGW studies

is deeply flawed. It lacks transparency and accountability,‖ he added. ―I have no problem

recognizing that over the entire past Century temperatures have shown a net rise. There has

also been a steady and generally indisputable rise in CO2 since regular measurements began

in 1958. But it is wrong to simply relate the warming segments of the 20th Century climate

to this rise in CO2 while ignoring the cooling periods by attributing those to Natural

Variability,‖ he added. (LINK)

U.S Army Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce West dissented from climate fears in 2008. West

faulted the UN IPCC for having "concluded that the contribution of solar variability to

global warming is negligible." West argued argues many global warming researchers have

not adequate modeled the Sun‘s impact, according to a June 3, 2008 article. West believes

the UN and others have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to

global warming." West along with Nicola Scafetta of Duke University Physics Department

published a March 2008 analysis showing the ―could account for as much as 69% of the

increase in Earth's average temperature.‖ (LINK) (LINK)

Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the

university‟s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United

Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World

Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization. Balling, who has also served in the UN IPCC, would have

preferred former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. He has

authored several books on global warming, including The Heated Debate and The

Satanic Gases. Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. "In

my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away," Balling said in a November 11,

2007 interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper. Noting the pressure he feels as a

skeptical scientist, Balling explained, "Somehow I've been branded this horrible person

who belongs in the depths of hell." He added, "There's just no tolerance right now." The

article explained, ―Balling's research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution

from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as

possible causes of rising temperatures.‖ (LINK)

Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, a former member of the Dutch IPCC committee

and a snow forecaster for Dutch winter sports, who holds a masters degree in

environmental science and has presented his research on soil moisture‟s role in global

climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), reversed his

views of man-made global warming. ―After the range of very warm years and ‗advent‘ Al

Gore, I became a reluctant climate change believer for about 6 months,‖ Smit wrote EPW

82

on April 11, 2008. Smit credited Gore with ultimately turning him into a skeptic. Gore

―prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in

the skeptic camp,‖ Smit wrote. In addition, Smit also critiqued the climate models that

predict future catastrophe. ―I am troubled by the practices I had seen at work in GCM

(global climate models), the whole field seemed highly suspicious to me.‖ ―During my full

year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd

arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception,‖ Smit explained. The

―practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate

them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting

colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur.

Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact,‖ Smit

wrote. ―The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solar-

climate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time

scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between

human CO2-emissions and climate change,‖ he added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist Brad Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society

(AMS) and Seal holder and past officer of the National Weather Association (NWA),

is currently with WJW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio. Sussman, a meteorologist for over 21

years, proudly calls himself a ―denouncer of the very-flawed man-made global warming

theory.‖ Sussman wrote to EPW on December 29, 2007 and explained that he ―debunks

[global warming] theory by using logic and humor.‖ According to Sussman, ―global

warming has been happening on and off for millions of years. Millions of years when

mankind wasn't driving around in SUVs and using coal for electric power!‖ ―Believing that

mankind is unequivocally responsible for global warming is the ultimate arrogance. Sorry

to be humble, but we‘re not that special. When global warmers talk, listen to their words.

The new catch phrase is: ‗The debate is over.‘ The only people who say ‗The debate is

over‘ are people who are afraid to debate,‖ Sussman wrote. ―‘The debate is over?‘ If we

used that line of thinking, man would have never gone to the moon, the Wright Brothers

would have never flown, and we‘d still think the Sun rotated around the Earth,‖ he

concluded. (LINK)

Professor of Nuclear Chemistry Dr. Oliver K. Manuel of the University of Missouri-

Rolla, has authored more than 100 scientific papers and published research in peer-

reviewed literature, rejected rising CO2 fears in 2008. Manuel wrote to CCNET in

February 2008 that there is an ―irrational basis of the current scare over global warming.‖

Manuel had previously rejected global warming predictions. ―Compared to solar magnetic

fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea

has on the weight of an elephant,‖ he wrote to CCNET. Manuel co-authored a December

2007 paper slated for publication in Supernova Research. (LINK) (LINK)

Hydrologist and geologist Mike McConnell of the U.S. Forest Service is a professional

Earth scientist who has studied atmospheric pollution, post-wildfire mitigation

planning, and groundwater surface water modeling. In 2007, McConnell dissented

from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis. ―Climate change is a climate

system that we have no real control over,‖ McConnell wrote on December 27, 2007. ―Our

understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun

83

are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to

change their environmental ways,‖ McConnell explained. He also dismissed claims that the

human race was ―the cause of our global warming.‖ McConnell wrote, ―There is no real

basis for this. There is a growing body of scientific literatures outlining that this not to be

the case.‖ He concluded, ―Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse

effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster

than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not

support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to

see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time,

especially over the last several years. But we're not.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK‟s Cavendish Laboratory in

Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy -- Sir

Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian

Defense Research Board, recently dissented from man-made climate change fears. ―It

seems fair to believe that this new model (from the UK‘s Climate Research Unit) assumes

that if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase, temperatures will go up. Since

some of us know this is wrong, it seems quite likely that the 2008 forecast will be as badly

wrong as the 2007 one was. What will the media do then? Maybe if the Northwest

Passage does not open up this summer, as seems quite likely, people may start to realize

that AGW (Anthropogenic Global warming) is a myth,‖ Cripwell wrote to CCNET on

January 8, 2008. Cripwell continued, ―Throughout the discussion of doubling the

concentration of CO2, there is absolutely no reference to the concentrations of CO2 in the

atmosphere over which the increased amount of radiative forcing is supposed to increase

linearly when the concentration of CO2 doubles. Presumably if you halved the

concentration of CO2, you would decrease the radiative forcing by some linear amount. If

you go on halving the CO2 concentration, then as the concentration of CO2 approached

zero, it would appear that the CO2 was rapidly cooling the earth!! Clearly any claim that

the doubling of the CO2 concentration results in a linear increase in the level of radiative

forcing can have no credibility unless the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere,

over which the relationship is claimed to exist, is clearly established from sound scientific

principles.‖ Cripwell concluded, ―If there is no scientific basis for the claim that doubling

the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing linearly, then

any claim to put a numerical value on this increase has no basis in science.‖ (LINK) In

another interview in 2005, Cripwell said, "Whatever is causing warming, it is not an

increase in levels of carbon dioxide. A more plausible theory is that it is water put into high

altitudes by aircraft; this would have roughly the same time line,‖ Cripwell said. (LINK)

Chemist and Biochemist Dr. Michael F. Farona, an emeritus professor of Chemistry

at the University of Akron and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro,

critiqued the news media for inadequate reporting about global warming and expressed

climate skepticism. ―Data, numbers, graphs, trends, etc., are generally missing in

supposedly scientific reports on global warming. These articles are usually long on

opinions and short on hard data. Phrases such as ‗scientists agree that ...‘ scientists doubt

that ...‘ do not belong in a scientific article. There are more data in Michael Crichton's

novel State of Fear than in all the global warming articles combined that I have read,‖

Farona wrote on January 3, 2008. ―There have been at least four interglacial periods, where

the glaciers have advanced and retreated. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago

84

and, in the case of North America, left the Great Lakes in the glacier's retreat. The glaciers

are still retreating, so there should not be any great surprise that the sea level is rising. The

industrial revolution is about 150 years old, compared to 10,000 years of warming. Can

human activities have really made a significant contribution to rising temperatures in that

amount of time?‖ Farona asked. ―We know that the east coast of the U.S. was flooded

during the previous interglacial period, so sea level rising and coastal flooding are not

unique to this interglacial period. Why now the draconian predictions of coastal flooding as

if this has not happened before?‖ he continued. ―What is the relationship between an

increased level of carbon dioxide and temperature? Can it be predicted that an increase of

so many parts per billion of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of so many degrees? I

have not seen any answers to the questions posed above, leading me to adopt a somewhat

skeptical view of blaming global warming on human activities. What puzzles me is the

reluctance of climatologists to provide scientific data supporting their dire predictions of

the near future if we don't change our ways,‖ Farona concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast

evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics

Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting

Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New

York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of

Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the

North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and

climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around

the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs

expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. "There is a lot of

uncertainly among scientists about what's going on with the climate," Briggs wrote to EPW

on December 28, 2007. "Most scientists just don't want the publicity one way or another.

Generally, publicity is not good for one's academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC

chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made

climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet," Briggs explained. "It is well

known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat

just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no

skill," Briggs wrote. "The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which

the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is

known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor

at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much

larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of

themselves and their models," he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of

climate models. "Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the

hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numerical-

approximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model

twice, once at ‗pre-industrial‘ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the

modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a

paper which states something to the effect of, ‗Our new model shows that increasing CO2

warms the air,‘‖ Briggs explained. ―Well, it couldn't do anything *but* show that, since

that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just

what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the

85

model were correct. Needless to say---but I will say it---this is backwards,‖ he

added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and

former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, conducted extensive

climate research and wrote a detailed analysis announcing that he had reversed his

views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done ―the math and

realized that you just can‘t get to global warming with CO2.‖ ―I believed [global warming

theory]. It made sense. I could see it easily and clearly. And that was a long, long time ago.

It seemed counterintuitive that anyone could or would not believe it. It was that seminal.

Homo Sapiens would cause the earth to warm, we now call it the Greenhouse Gas theory,

and it is now a law (at least in California),‖ explained. See: February 28, 2008, full

statement here. (Note: McClenney joins other scientists who recently converted from

believer to skeptic of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in

Oslo, has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and

solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. Brekke,

who was the deputy project scientist for the entire international Solar and

Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and has a new book about the sun titled SolarMax, rejected claims of a ―consensus‖ on global warming. ―It's possible that the sun plays an

even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that

the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach

to one of the most momentous issues of our time,‖ Brekke said on March 3, 2008. ―We

could find the temperature leveling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year

period,‖ Brekke explained. "There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is

levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun's activity is of great significance in

determining the earth's climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite

direction to climate change caused by humans,‖ Brekke explained. The article continued,

―The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has determined that the

earth's temperature has risen by about 0.7° C since 1901. According to Dr. Brekke, this

time period coincides not only with an increase in human-caused greenhouse gas

emissions, but also with a higher level of solar activity, which makes it complicated to

separate the effects of these two phenomena.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Biologist Dr. Matthew Cronin, a research professor at the School of Natural

Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, called

predictions that future global warming would devastate polar bear populations ―one

extreme case hypothesis.‖ ―We don‘t know what the future ice conditions will be, as there

is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent

of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased

worldwide over the last few decades,‖ Cronin said in March 2007. ―Recent declines in sea

ice and indications that polar bears in some areas may be negatively impacted are cause for

concern, but in my opinion do not warrant designation of the species as threatened with

extinction,‖ Cronin said. ―I believe that consideration of multiple hypotheses regarding the

future of sea ice and polar bear populations would provide better science than reliance on

one extreme case hypothesis of loss of sea ice and associated drastic declines in polar bear

populations,‖ Cronin said. (LINK) & (LINK)

86

Senior Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang P. Thuene was a former analyst and forecaster for

the German Weather Service in the field of synoptic meteorology and also worked for

the German Environmental Protection Agency. Thuene currently works in the

Ministry of Environment and Forests of Rheinland-Pfalz. Thuene rejected the idea that

mankind is driving global warming. ―All temperature and weather observations indicate

that the earth isn‘t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‗natural greenhouse

effect‘ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission

a ‗global warming effect‘. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets

inevitably colder. This natural fact, formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in his ‗cooling law‘,

led Sir James Dewar to the construction of the ‗Dewar flask‘ to minimize heat losses from

a vessel. But the most perfect thermos flask can‘t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold.

The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made ‗greenhouse effect‘, like eugenics, belongs to

the category ‗scientific errors,‖ Thuene wrote on February 24, 2007. ―The infrared

thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The

atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the

convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and

is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth‘s surface. This window cannot be

closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the

atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses

warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection

of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the

solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the

atmosphere,‖ Thuene wrote. ―Summarizing we can say: Earth‘s surface gains heat from the

Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar

radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a nonstop

process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity.

Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the

air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile

changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,‖ Thuene

explained. (LINK)

Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA‟s Plum

Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at its

headquarters office near Washington, DC. DeFayette, who earned a masters degree in

Physical Chemistry, also worked at the NRC‟s Regional Office near Chicago where he

was a Director of the Enforcement staff. He also served as a consultant to the

Department of Energy. DeFayette wrote a critique of former Vice President Al Gore's

book, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007. ―I freely admit I am a skeptic,‖ DeFayette told EPW

on January 15, 2008. ―I take umbrage in so-called ‗experts‘ using data without checking

their sources. My scientific background taught me to question things that do not appear to

be right (e.g.-if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is). That is one reason I went to

such detail in critiquing Gore's book. I also strongly object to the IPCC and its use of so-

called ‗experts,‘‖ DeFayette explained. In his March 14, 2007 critique of Gore, DeFayette

dismissed Gore‘s claim that ―the survival of our civilization‖ is at stake. DeFayette wrote,

―Nonsense! Civilization may one day cease to exist but it won‘t be from global warming

caused by CO2. I can think of many more promising scenarios such as disease, nuclear

war; volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteor impacts; solar heating.‖ DeFayette asserted that

Gore‘s book was ―a political, not scientific, book. There is absolutely no discussion about

87

the world‘s climate history, effects of the sun, other planets, precession, eccentricity, etc.‖

DeFayette disputed Gore‘s notion of a ―consensus.‖ ―Until a few months ago, scientists

believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8 because Pluto was demoted. In the 1600s

scientists believed we lived in an earth-centered universe but Galileo disagreed and proved

we lived in a sun-centered universe. At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was

that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, ‗Neptunists‘

were convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth‘s crust had been precipitated from water

and Robert Jameson, a British geologist, characterized the supporting evidence as

‗incontrovertible,‘‖ DeFayette wrote. ―In each of these cases there was ‗scientific

consensus‘ that eventually was rejected,‖ he added.

Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, the principal investigator for the

Committee for Scientific Research of the province of Buenos Aires (CIC) and head of

the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, dissented from the global

warming ―consensus‖ in 2007. "There is no denying a warming; the discussion is whether

it was created by man or whether it is natural. There are effects of human action, but it is

much more likely to be a natural product,‖ Tonni said, according to a December 2, 2007

article in the Argentine publication Perfil.com. [translated] "Many of us think so (warming

is natural), but of course, this is not politically correct. I know that I am saying this and I

am without [industry] subsidies," Tonni said in the article titled ―A Group of Argentine

Scientists Skeptical of Climate Change.‖ Tonni, who received the ―Merit Award‖ in 2003

by the Argentina Paleontologist Association, also dismissed the linkage of natural disasters

to man-made climate change. "There are countless historical records of disasters, but it is

very difficult to estimate if the frequency is greater. Perhaps we are more informed. The El

Niño event is known only from some 30 years ago,‖ Tonni said. "The scaremongering has

its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. If you say that global

change is produced by natural effects, we would sit and see what happens. Thus, we have

more things to do. I would say that, unfortunately, this is another product of the market,‖ he

added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Economist Dr. George Reisman, an Emeritus Professor at Pepperdine University and

author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, dismissed man-made climate fears and

rejected calls for global warming inspired cap-and-trade regulations in 2007. ―Global

warming is not a threat. But environmentalism‘s response to it is,‖ Reisman wrote on May

30, 2007. ―In fact, if it comes, global warming, in the projected likely range, will bring

major benefits to much of the world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will

become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of

Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time will shorten important shipping

routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be

longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in

the atmosphere,‖ Reisman wrote. ―Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an

industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it—that is, of course, if

their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement

and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with

global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed

from the perspective of government central planners,‖ he explained. ―All of the rising

clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains.

It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military

88

misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible. Already, led by French

President Jacques Chirac, forces are gathering to make non-compliance with emissions

caps an international crime. According to an Associated Press report of February 5, 2007,

‗Forty-Five nations joined France in calling for a new environmental body to slow global

warming and protect the planet, a body that potentially could have policing powers to

punish violators.‘ Given such developments, it is absolutely vital that the United States

never enter into any international treaty in which it agrees to caps on greenhouse-gas

emissions,‖ he added. ―In previous centuries it was common for religion to threaten those

whose way of life was not to its satisfaction, with the prospect of hellfire and brimstone in

the afterlife. Substitute for the afterlife, life on earth in centuries to come, and it is possible

to see that environmentalism and the rest of the left are now doing essentially the same

thing. They hate the American way of life because of its comfort and luxury. And to

frighten people into abandoning it, they are threatening them with a global-warming

version of hellfire and brimstone,‖ he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Victor Pochat, president of the Argentine Institute of Water Resources and a teacher

of water resources planning at Universidad del Litoral, is a member of the South

American Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership. Pochat

questioned man-made global warming fears and pointed out that many scientists disagree.

―There are voices on the causes and reasons for the warming, but we hear from some more

than others,‖ Pochat said, according to a December 2, 2007 article in the Argentine

publication Perfil.com. [Translated] Pochat believes ―it is not clear that increases of a few

degrees in average temperature of the planet is directly related to human activity but could

be due to cyclical effects,‖ according to the article. ―Scientists that deserve credit for their

background say global warming is a climatic variability associated to cycles of warming

and cooling of the Earth,‖ Pochat explained. The article was titled, ―A Group of Argentine

Scientists Skeptical of Climate Change.‖ (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Geophysicist Robert Woock is a senior geophysicist at Stone Energy in Louisiana and

past president of the Southwest Louisiana Geophysical Society. Woock, who earned a

masters in geology, has published on hydrocarbon detection techniques in the

publication of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). Woock

recently declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears. ―I am a Geophysicist by

education and practice with over thirty years in practice. Having studied the paleoclimate

and environment for over thirty-five years I have come to some fundamental conclusions

about our current conditions. The global warming debate is not over. I do not see any

evidence in nature or data to suggest that we are in any anthropologic climate cycle,‖

Woock told EPW on December 21, 2007. ―We have certainly created local climes, hot

cities and deforestation that affect certain areas, but these are reversible to a large degree. I

also agree with the point that weather is not climate. It is difficult to accept, and probably

impossible to prove that manipulation of second order effects such as CO2 content could

have any climatic impact. Climate is driven by first order processes, i.e.; solar flux and

planetary environments. All the rest, including CO2 content, is driven by the first order

processes,‖ Woock explained. ―All the data used to ‗support‘ the global warming theory

can better demonstrate this relationship. Put me down as a serious skeptic on

anthropologic global warming,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

89

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, Ivar Giaever, a fellow of the American

Physical Society, declared himself a dissenter in 2008. ―I am a skeptic,‖ Giaever

announced in June 2008. ―Global warming has become a new religion,‖ Giaever added. ―I

am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately

becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years

ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The

ozone hole width has peaked in 1993,‖ he continued. ―Moreover, global warming has

become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it.

But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really

know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the

money,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen, who is a lecturer in the Department of Atmospheric

and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, a member of the American

Meteorological Society, and has worked with the National Center for Atmospheric

Research, dissented in 2008. Keen specializes in volcanic aerosols and climate change

studies and wrote the book Skywatch: The Western Weather Guide. Keen‘s 2008 global

warming PowerPoint asking ―Inconvenient Questions‖ was featured on October 14, 2008,

on former Colorado State climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke‘s Sr. website. (LINK) According

to Keen, global warming ranges between a ―minor inconvenience that‘s overblown‖ or

―nothing – it doesn‘t exist‖ or ―a good thing.‖ ―Earth has cooled since 1998,‖ Keen noted,

―in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.‖ According to Keen, ―The global

temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium.‖ After

noting the recent cooling temps, Keen wrote ―which is why ‗global warming‘ is now called

‗climate change.‘‖ Keen also pointed out that the most Antarctic sea ice on record was

recorded in 2007 and then he rhetorically asked: ―Did you see [that fact] reported in the

news?‖ ―U.S. carbon emission growth rate has slowed to 0.2 % per year since 2000,‖ Keen

wrote. Keen concludes his PowerPoint by stating: ―Enjoy the warm climate while it lasts,

and please make enough CO2 to feed a tree.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

Finnish Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck is lecturer of environmental technology and a

chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland and has authored 200

scientific publications and was former Greenpeace member. ―The theory of how carbon

dioxide influences the global mean temperature is complicated and unreliable… so far, real

measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,‖ Ahlbeck

wrote in a October 8, 2008 paper titled ―No Significant Global Warming Sine 1995.‖ ―It

has been widely discussed if the satellite-derived global temperature measurements that

show only little warming should be more reliable than the temperatures obtained on the

ground that show more warming. But after 1995 both sources show about the same. A good

reason to start a diagram from 1995 is that since that year no big (cooling) volcano

eruptions have disturbed the temperature trend. Contrary to common belief, there has been

no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent

datasets. The curves look very normal and it seems probable that the natural recovery from

the little ice age has went on without any significant decelerations or accelerations caused

by human activity. It is impossible to say what is going to happen in the future. But so far,

real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,‖

Ahlbeck explained. (LINK) (LINK) [Note: Many other scientists who are also progressive

90

environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

(LINK) ]

Senior Chemist Glenn Speck of the Oklahoma City Isotek Environmental Lab, who

has over 35 years of laboratory experience in the government and private sectors,

testing air, water, fuel, and soil for pollutants and other chemicals, including CO2,

dissented from man-made climate fears in 2007. “Although much of the liberal press and

the liberal politicians endorse man-made global warming as a complete, irrefutable reality,

there are a substantial number of us scientists that strongly disagree. There is little

disagreement that some warming has likely occurred, but many of us think that most, if not

all of that change is due to natural planetary processes,‖ Speck wrote in a June 14, 2007

letter. ―The public has been repeatedly misled that there is a scientific consensus on global

warming. Totally false. Unfortunately, man-made climate change, or anthropogenic global

warming as it‘s more commonly known, has become a political issue rather than a

scientific one. Those who want you to accept that humans have caused climate change have

a not-so-hidden agenda of imposing carbon taxes here in the United States that will cripple

our economy and make us even more unable to compete with other nations,‖ Speck

explained. ―Those of us who don‘t believe the anthropogenic global warming claims also

have to live on this planet, and we want it environmentally in good condition for our

children and grandchildren. We can and should be better stewards of our ecosystems,‖ he

added. (LINK)

Professor emeritus of aerospace engineering Vincent U. Muirhead, who researched

and taught at the University of Kansas in the area of gas dynamics for 28 years, and

also developed a laboratory model of a tornado, declared his climate change dissent in

2008. ―The new green left (environmentalist) propaganda reminds me of the old red left

(communist) propaganda. The dirty word is now carbon rather than capitalism. The game is

simply to intrude and control everything. How much will the carbon tax be for each of us to

breathe?‖ Muirhead wrote in the Kansas City Star on June 8, 2008. ―I concur with Bill

McAllister‘s letter, ‗The climate-warming game,‘‖ Muirhead wrote. ―There are six

equations that describe a gas dynamics problem: the equation of state, and five nonlinear

differential equations expressing the conservation of mass, momentum and energy. Key to

these for the atmosphere are: 1. the future flow of heat from the sun as a function of time

and space and 2. the absorbent and reflective nature of the atmosphere as a function of time

and space. We don‘t have a clue about these. For any computer model to produce answers,

many extremely questionable assumptions must be made. As McAllister noted, ‗Why can‘t

the current scientific models accurately predict next week‘s weather?‘‖ he asked. (LINK) &

(LINK)

Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni

reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once

Hungary‘s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. After researching climate

issues further he converted to a man-made global warming skeptic. After studying the

theory developed by Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years

of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Zágoni

stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new

theory to other climatologists, the March 6, 2008, article in Daily Tech reported. Zágoni

wrote to EPW on May 3, 2008, "The present-day greenhouse theory is incorrect in the

91

sense that it is incomplete: it does not contain all the real energetic constraints and

boundary conditions. As former NASA atmospheric scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has showed

in a new analysis, the Earth maintains a balanced greenhouse effect with controlled surface

temperature, which cannot be changed solely by changing the atmospheric longwave

absorber concentration. It can be changed only if the incoming available energy changes.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission cannot generate global warming, neither in the

past, nor in the future. The 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from the mid-1800s is mainly

due to natural causes; its origin is somewhere in the ocean's heat exchange and/or in the

change of solar constant and the planetary albedo. Further 3-6 degree global warming is

physically more than unlikely: it is impossible. The new greenhouse equations of Dr.

Miskolczi can be read at the official website of the Quarterly Journal of the HMS, Vol. 111.

No.1., 2007 (LINK) ―To put it in a language that IPCC will understand: Extra CO2 does

not result extra 'radiative forcing' in the final account, as the energy constraint rules it back

to its equilibrium value. Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide

leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the

necessary balance conditions. So, contrary to the common wisdom, there is no positive

H2O-temperature feedback on global scale: in Earth-type atmospheres uncontrolled

runaway warming is not possible. This new theory seems to be only a little step forward in

the two-hundred year old greenhouse science, but its consequences are revolutionary:

actually it stops the possibility of man-made global warming.‖

Field Geologist Louis A.G. Hissink is the editor of The Australian Institute of

Geoscientists Newsletter and is currently working on the ore-reserve feasibility study

of the Koongie Park Base Metals project in Western Australia. Hissink, who earned a

masters in geology, recently dissented from man-made climate fears. ―The assumption that

humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the earth

by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical evidence. No

gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to misunderstand basic

physics and the greenhouse effect,‖ Hissink told EPW on January 21, 2008. ―The global

mean temperature derivations from the surface meteorological stations confuse the thermal

state of the measuring instruments with unspecified volumes of air nor are those

temperatures linked to any discrete physical object; in geostatistics this is known as a data

set lacking sample support and no more a metric of the earth's thermal state as the mean

calculated from the telephone numbers of the meteorological stations producing the

temperature readings,‖ Hissink explained. ―Recent discoveries by NASA in the area of

space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun electromagnetically where

tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely measured during polar aurora

displays by satellites - this enormous source of energy, and thus heat, is completely ignored

as a factor affecting the earth's thermal balance in global climate models. It is this

electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that modulates the earth's

climate,‖ Hissink added. (LINK) & (LINK)

Jerome J. Schmitt is a Yale University-educated engineer who studied fluid mechanics

and gas dynamics, founded the Jet Process Corporation and invented the Jet Vapor

Deposition (JVD) process for thin films and coatings. Schmitt, who served as Vice

President for Research and Development at MicroCoating Technologies, holds five

patents and has authored 30 technical publications. Schmitt, currently president of

NanoEngineering Corporation, questioned the validity of computer climate model

92

predictions of man-made global warming. ―While mankind cannot experiment on the

global climate, these models can be used retroactively to see how well they ‗model‘ the

past. The UN's 2001 Climate Change report distorted the historical record by eliminating

the Medieval Warm Period in the famous ‗Hockey Stick Curve‘ which, by many accounts,

unreasonably accentuated temperature rise in the 20th century. Such distortion of the

historical data undercuts the credibility of the models themselves, since this is the only

‗experimental data‘ available for testing the fidelity of the models to the actual climate,‖

Schmitt wrote on February 28, 2007. Schmitt detailed the multitude of inputs that he

believes makes climate models unreliable. ―Let's list some of the factors that must be

included (by no means an exhaustive list): Solar flux; Gravity; Pressure; Temperature;

Density; Humidity; Earth's rotation; Surface temperature; Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf

Stream); Greenhouse gases; CO2 dissolved in the oceans; Polar ice caps; Infrared radiation;

Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation); Earth's magnetic field; Evaporation; Precipitation; Cloud

formation; Reflection from clouds; Reflection from snow; Volcanoes; Soot formation;

Trace compounds; And many, many others. Even if mathematics could be developed to

accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex

requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the

modeler. Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds? Well, we were told that trace

amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating

the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants. Can we ignore

cosmic rays? Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone

layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles. As with all models, it is

perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might

otherwise have significant effect,‖ he wrote. ―Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting

properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our

current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there

will be, either,‖ he added. ―In my view, we should adopt the private sector's practice of

placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions in

the absence of confirming test data, that is, climate data which can be easily collected just

by waiting,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Former IPCC author and El Niño expert Rosa Compagnucci, the author of two IPCC

reports in 2001 (Working Group II – Latin America Chapter), is a researcher with

the National Science and Technology Commission who has published peer-reviewed

papers. Compagnucci is also a professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences in

the University of Buenos Aires. Compagnucci refuted man-made climate claims in 2007.

"Is global warming something unusual, say, the last two thousand years?" Compagnucci

said, according to a December 2, 2007 article in the Argentine publication Perfil.com.

[Translated] The article was titled, ―A Group of Argentine Scientists Skeptical of Climate

Change.‖ Compagnucci believes humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to

warming on Earth and that solar activity is a key driver of climate, according to the article.

"There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300.

And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name [by the Vikings]

that refers to land green: 'Greenland.‘‖ (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist Karl Bohnak of WLUC TV6 in Michigan holds the American

Meteorological Society‟s Seal of Approval and authored the book So Cold a Sky,

Upper Michigan Weather Stories. Bohnak also recently dissented from man-made global

93

warming fears. ―Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of earth‘s natural ‗greenhouse‘

effect. Carbon dioxide gets all the attention because that is what is released in the burning

of fossil fuels. Yet it accounts for less than 4 percent of the total greenhouse effect. For the

anthropogenic global warming argument to work, water vapor must increase along with

CO2. CO2‘s contribution - natural and manmade - is just not enough to raise global

temperatures as much as climate models predict,‖ Bohnak wrote on January 28, 2008. ―On

the other hand, [Climatologist Roger] Pielke, Sr. coauthored a paper... In it, lower-

tropospheric temperatures over North America had indeed increased between 1979 and

2006, but precipitable water vapor and total precipitable water content had not. This

suggests that climate model assumptions of constant relative humidity in a warmer world

may be all wet,‖ Bohnak explained. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008

International Geological Congress, has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers and

is currently a professor at the Department for Geosciences of Uppsala University in

Sweden. Gee was awarded the European Geosciences Union award for his scientific

leadership of EUROPROBE, a project of the International Lithosphere Program and

the European Science Foundation. Gee has led geologic expeditions to such locales as

Svalbard, Novaya Zemlya, Severnaya Zemlya, the Polar Urals and the Taimyr

Peninsula. Gee, who chairs a Swedish Research Council committee, declared himself a

dissenter of man-made global warming fears in 2008. ―So my question is extremely simple,

we know temperature goes up and down. We know there is tremendous amount of natural

variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that

the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" Gee asked to

applause from the audience on August 8, 2008, during the prestigious Geological Congress

in Oslo, Norway, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games. Gee presented a

temperature and carbon dioxide chart to the conference to illustrate the lack of linkage

between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels. ―How sure can we be [about carbon

dioxide driving global temperatures]?‖ ―You see the carbon dioxide curve going straight

across that diagram from left to right, upwards,‖ Gee continued. [Note: An online video of

an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see

video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: HERE ] ―If we look at last ten

years, this is the thing we have been quarrelling about. You see on left there in 1998, the

temperature when we had the El Niño, and the very high peak in 1998 and then a general

sinking and flattening and then two years of sharply decreasing temperatures. I don‘t think

anyone quarrels about this; this is international data and well established graphs. You see

the carbon dioxide curve going straight across that diagram from left to right, upwards,‖ he

added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Award-winning Geologist Leighton Steward, who has been a recognized

environmentalist and conservationist for his work on preserving wetlands, twice

chaired the Audubon Nature Institute and is currently the chairman of the Institute

for the study of Earth and Man at SMU. He is a former member of the Advisory

Board of the Lamon-Dougherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and has

received numerous environmental awards, including the EPA's award for

environmental excellence and the API's Gold Medal Award for his company's

leadership in voluntary environmental practices. His new book just released in 2008 is

titled Fire, Ice and Paradise. Steward reversed his global warming view and is now a

94

skeptic. ―Steward came to the issue of global warming as a ‗believer‘,‖ an October 4, 2007

article reported. ―‗I was a prophetic global warmer,‘ Steward said. ‗Gore won‘t debate this

subject,‘ said Steward, but maybe he has come to understand it – ‗maybe that‘s why he has

cancelled the last six months of his tour,‘‖ the article continued. ―‗We [on earth] are at one

of the lowest points of CO2 levels today,‘ Steward said.‖ The article explained that

Steward believes ―CO2‘s ability to trap heat declines rapidly, logarithmically, and reaches

a point of significantly reduced future effect, said Steward, in explaining why correlations

with CO2 don‘t hold. A far m ore consistent and significant correlation exists between the

planet‘s temperature and the output of energy from the sun, said Steward. There have been

a lot of sunspots this century, which are associated with higher energy levels from the sun.

45 million years ago the sun was 30 percent warmer.‖ Steward is concerned about earth

cooling. Historic cycles would suggest that another ice age is more likely in the near future.

And, they can happen relatively quickly – within a hundred years. Human beings can

withstand a warming of the planet more so than a cooling, said Steward. Many times more

people die from cold than from heat, he said. In fact, Steward‘s not all that sure that slightly

warmer climates would be all that bad. (LINK) [Note: Steward joins a growing number of

scientists who have reconsidered their views because of new data observations, peer-

reviewed studies and scientific analysis. See: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent

Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics – May 15, 2007 ]

Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials

Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, who received the New Zealand

Science and Technology Silver Medal in 2003 from The Royal Society of New

Zealand, has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers.

Duffy also declared himself skeptical of man-made global warming fears in 2008. ―Even

doubling or trebling (tripling) the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little

impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the

worldwide scene and always will,‖ Duffy said in a September 4, 2008, essay. ―It is also

interesting to note that NASA‘s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been

cooling since 1998. This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes

that the ocean is cooling. This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‗climate

alarmists‘. The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in

absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses. But the warmer the

Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing

process,‖ Duffy wrote. ―So what are the key players in ‗Climate Change‘? The major

driver is the sun. Warming depends on the sun. Cooling is due to the lack of sun‘s energy.

Radiant energy enters the earth‘s atmosphere. Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of

nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%. Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (i.e. 0.934%),

or almost all is the inert gas argon. Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm

(parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a

fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of

the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population,‖ Duffy concluded. (LINK)

(LINK)

Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia's

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) who

specializes in geosciences and sedimentology, rejected global warming fears in 2008. ―I

have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-

95

made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this.

When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?‖ Smith asked in an August

16, 2008, essay. ―I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are

knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to

be exposed by the science itself,‖ Smith explained. ―There is no atmospheric hot-spot from

‗greenhouse CO2‘ despite over 20 years of serious looking for it. Occam's razor would

point to the sun as the driver of climate change of significance. Human generated carbon

dioxide is arguably around 3% of the total carbon dioxide budget, and in the light of the

above, we are effectively irrelevant to the natural climate change continuum,‖ he added.

(LINK)

Research scientist William Hunt has worked for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration and served as a wildlife biologist and a geologist. Hunt

produced a 2007 audio series titled “Global Warming Exposed!” and is set to release a

book titled Global Warming Challenged-Science or Myth? Hunt dissented in 2007. In

2007 Hunt dissented from the view that mankind is driving a climate crisis. ―Scientists and

activists alike have jumped on the [global warming] bandwagon. It‘s become a fad, a trend,

a wave of enthusiasm and the scientists are going along with the fad to get research grants

and the media limelight,‖ Hunt wrote on January 22, 2007 in an article titled ―The

Nonsense of Global Warming.‖ ―The facts, such as we can observe and calculate them, do

not support the idea of man-made global warming. Natural processes completely eclipse

anything that man can accomplish- a minor rainstorm expends more energy than a large

nuclear explosive releases and the lowest category of hurricane expends more energy than

all of the nuclear weapons ever produced in a short time,‖ Hunt wrote. ―Most geologists

and indeed, most scientists in the U.S., do not accept the idea that global warming resulting

from human activities is a viable theory -because most have an appreciation for the kind of

power inherent in natural systems. Conversely, most biologists do accept the idea of man-

caused global warming and quote scientists in other fields, without understanding those

other fields sufficiently to make a logical judgment as to whether the studies were

reasonable in their methods and claims. They simply take it on faith that the scientists

propounding global warming are correct in their methods and assumptions,‖ Hunt

explained. ―The problem with computer [climate] modeling is that only a tiny percentage

of the literally millions of variables involved can be written into a program. It‘s currently

impossible for us to accurately model Earth‘s climate and we are not aware of all of the

variables yet,‖ he added. (LINK) & (LINK)

Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from

his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency‘s lack of

scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the

Heartland global warming conference in March 2008, said he wanted to release his new

research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance

equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ―Unfortunately, my working

relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My

idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling

new climate change related scientific results,‖ Miskolczi said according to a March 6, 2008

Daily Tech article. (LINK)

96

Professor of Ecological Studies, Dr. Terry Wimberley of Florida Gulf Coast

University teaches courses on environmental health, risk assessment, and

epidemiology. Wimberley, who is a professor in the Division of Marine Sciences and

Ecological Sciences at the University, is the author of the forthcoming book Nested

Ecology. Wimberley dissented from man-made climate fears in 2007. ―At issue is how big

of a problem is human produced CO2 emissions. Undoubtedly to some marginal degree -

which scientists debate about - it is a problem, but is it the major cause of global warming?

No,‖ Wimberley wrote said on Nov. 1, 2007. ―More important is the interaction of solar

activity (solar winds) with penetrating cosmic rays into the earth‘s atmosphere. When

cosmic ray activity is great a large volume of rays penetrate the earth's lower atmosphere

and contribute to cloud formation and cool the earth. However, when there is a lot of solar

activity, solar winds tend to blow away just enough of the cosmic rays to thwart cloud

formation at the lower levels resulting in fewer clouds and global warming. This

phenomenon can be documented over hundreds if not thousands of years - well before

humans were able to affect atmosphere,‖ Wimberley explained. ―Scientists do not dispel

the problem of global warming -- that is real -- but rather the CO2 theory of global

warming, which unfortunately is not verified by geological and climate records going back

thousands of years or by observed fact. The CO2 theory of climate change is based upon a

computer simulation model and flawed data that has been widely criticized in scientific

literature. The theory has acquired ‗political legs‘ because there are interests who see

benefit to be derived from their ideological positions by pursuing some of the policies that

can be justified by aggressively responding to a global warming threat,‖ he added. (LINK)

& (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Francis T. Manns, who earned his Ph.D from the University of Toronto

and currently runs Artesian Geological Research, expressed skepticism of a man-made

―climate crisis.‖ ―As a stratigrapher/paleogeographer, I have been aware throughout my

career of the wide variations in the climate of Earth as recorded in the rocks. Climate

change is the norm for the planet,‖ Manns wrote to EPW on January 20, 2008. ―I am

unaware of any CO2 research that demonstrates a temperature anomaly that corresponds to

CO2 flux in the atmosphere. On the contrary, everything I read from the refereed side of

science shows CO2 to trail warming, probably due to the property of gases of retrograde or

inverse solubility in water,‖ Manns explained. Manns also disputed the CO2 caused ocean

acidification fears. ―Ocean pH is not governed by physico-chemical rules. Marine

organisms control their calcium carbonate properties organically behind membranes.

Increased CO2, in any case, evolves from sea water because of inverse solubility. CO2

dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. That‘s why CO2 trails natural

warming,‖ Manns wrote on January 14, 2008 on the New York Times website. ―Objective

scientists realize that coral, foraminifera and shellfish have deep mechanism that have

evolved over 100s of millions of years as CO2 has fluctuated far wider than we see in the

atmosphere today. Google Ernst-Georg Beck for a synoptic paper on 180 years of CO2

measurements in the atmosphere, some by Nobel Prize-winning chemists. The UN IPCC

has cooked the books. CO2 was as high as 400 ppm on 1940 before the recent cooling

period,‖ Manns wrote. (LINK)

Chemist and Chemical Engineer Dr. William L. Wells is an Adjunct Professor of

Chemistry at Murray State University who has studied air pollution control

technologies and spent over 16 years in SOx (Sulfur Oxides)and NOx (Nitrogen

97

Oxides) scrubber technology development and clean coal research. Wells expressed

skepticism about man-made climate change. "Scientific measurements confirm the CO2

concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. There is some evidence that the earth may be

warming, but to what degree and its cause are not clear," Wells told EPW on January 23,

2008. "Beyond that there is little that can be said with certainty at this point. Correlation is

not cause and effect," Wells explained. He further urged "being cautious and avoiding

precipitous actions until more is certain in the scientific sense." Wells also dismissed U.S.

efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. "Many in Congress promoting these measures for CO2

control mandates fail to appreciate that the atmosphere is global, hence emissions must be

considered world-wide. One source indicates that China has plans to add 500 coal-fired

plants in the next decade, while India is right behind with 200 plants on the drawing board.

Restricting U.S. anthropogenic emissions, only a small part of the CO2 released into the

environment, is a way of cutting off our economic noses to spite our faces," Wells wrote.

"Without global reductions there is very little that the US can do to impact CO2 levels in

the atmosphere, besides, of course, political posturing," he concluded.

Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder and

director of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published

articles in the research fields of Thermodynamics, Numerical Methods in Fluid

Mechanics and Energy Transfer, Energy System Analysis, Energy and Environment

Policy, and Meteorological Forecast. Domingos, an honorary member of the editorial

boards of several international scientific journals, recently called CO2 related climate

fears ―dangerous nonsense.‖ ―There are measurable climate changes but there is also an

enormous manipulation in reducing everything to CO2 and equivalents. The main gas

producing the green house effect is water vapor. The present alarm on climate change is an

instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became

an ideology, which is concerning,‖ Domingos said in an interview in Sabado

Noticias [Saturday News] magazine on January 26, 2008. ―There are three realities: one

scientific – that shows the observed data – another of virtual reality – based on computer

models – and another public. Between the three there are big contradictions,‖ Domingos

explained. ―Everything made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is positive, because it

implies a reduction in energy consumption. But creating an ideology pegged to carbon

dioxide is a dangerous nonsense,‖ Domingos added. (LINK) & (LINK)

UN IPCC award-winning environmental physical chemist Dr. Kiminori Itoh of

Yokohama National University, a contributor to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth

assessment report) as an expert reviewer, publicly rejected man-made climate fears in

2008, calling the promotion of such fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”

Itoh, who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy, is a former lecturer at the

University of Tokyo and the author of the just released his new book Lies and Traps in

the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only). ―We have described many topics

in this book, including inaccurate temperature measurements (e.g., A. Watt‘s work),

‗observations‘ of climate sensitivity, many climate forcings such as colored-aerosol and

vegetation (based on 2005 NRC report as Roger has so many times pointed out), and the

effect of solar magnetic activity (including my own work),‖ Itoh wrote on June 17, 2008,

on the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Itoh‘s new

book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears ―the worst scientific

scandal in the history.‖ ―I also cited the opinions of Dr. Akasofu (Professor Emeritus,

98

University of Alaska) in the last part of the book. He sincerely advises us‚ ‗When people

come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists,‘ and says,

‗IPCC should make appropriate comments before G8.‘ I sincerely think he is correct,‖ Itoh

wrote. Itoh concludes his book with six points: ―1. The global temperature will not increase

rapidly if at all. There is sufficient time to think about future energy and social systems. 2.

The climate system is more robust than conventionally claimed. For instance, the Gulf

Stream will not stop due to fresh water inflow. 3. There are many factors that cause the

climate changes, particularly in regional and local scales. Considering only greenhouse

gases is nonsense and harmful. 4. A comprehensive climate convention is necessary. The

framework-protocol formulism is too old to apply to modern international issues. 5.

Reconsider countermeasures for the climate changes. For instance, to reduce Asian Brown

Cloud through financial and technical aid of developed countries is beneficial from many

aspects, and can become a Win-Win policy. 6. The policy makers should be ‗Four-ball

jugglers.‘ Multiple viewpoints are inevitable to realize sustainable societies.‖ (LINK)

Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of Meteorology at Oregon State University, signed the

2008 Oregon Petition dissenting from man-made climate fears. "There is no convincing

scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse

gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's

atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific

evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects

upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth,‖ the petition that Decker

signed states. Decker also challenged temperature data. ―One day the Gazette-Times told of

a minimum temperature about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas the radio station at the

Marys River bridge into Avery Park reported much colder, a ‗minus‘ reading, which agreed

with home thermometers of some readers. Inquiring about locations, I learned the ‗official‘

minimum came from the shelter atop the steam-heated agricultural building on campus.

Moreover, the professor moved the instruments to the greenhouses to the west in the

summers when he worked there. What poor practice!‖ Decker wrote on June 22, 2008. ―I

appealed to the agricultural dean upon learning of the imminent retirement of the professor

responsible. I suggested a site near the KOAC towers if possible. The compromise site at

Hyslop got selected, and Wheeler Calhoun‘s data got quoted daily in the Gazette-Times,‖

Decker wrote. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Soil scientist and geologist Viv Forbes, the chairman of Australian based “The

Carbon Sense Coalition,” dissented from man-made climate fears. ―There is no evidence

that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving surface temperature, and there is plenty of

evidence to show that current levels of temperature and carbon dioxide are neither extreme

nor of concern,‖ Forbes wrote on July 1, 2007. ―Even if the water vapor and carbon dioxide

produced by man did cause some slight warming of the earth, is this a problem? Eons of

geological history show that a warm, moist, carbon-rich atmosphere encourages all life on

earth. These periods are referred to as ‗Golden Ages‘. The cold barren periods are those to

be feared – they get called ‗The Dark Ages‘,‖ Forbes explained. ―It is unbelievable that

many in politics and the media are whipping up public hysteria about ‗global warming‘

when the best evidence suggests that for the 100 years ending in the year 2000, the century

of coal, steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet planes, two world wars and a

population explosion, the average surface temperature rose by only 0.6 deg, and there has

been NO increase in temperature since 1998. In many areas, surface temperatures have

99

been falling for decades,‖ he continued. ―The output of a complex computer simulation of

the atmosphere is not ‗evidence‘. It is a fluttering flag of forecasts, hung on a slim flagpole

of theory, resting on a leaky raft of assumptions, which is drifting without the rudder of

evidence, in cross currents of ideology emotion and bias, on the wide deep and restless

ocean of the unknown,‖ Forbes added. (LINK)

Italian Air Force Meteorologist Guido Guidi, who managed weather stations that

were part of the global climate monitoring system and runs the “Climate Monitor”

website, dissented in 2008. ―Despite the continued substantial margin of uncertainty in

understanding the dynamics of climate -- including the weight of the anthropogenic factor -

- the long wave of publications of the 4th Report of 'IPCC last year is having its effect. No

matter how many scientists are not yet convinced of the responsibilities of humankind in

climate change, no matter the distance between the reality of the observations and

projections resulting from (computer) simulations, no matter the hundreds of thousands of

pages written to rebut the arguments underlying this [man-made global warming]

conviction,‖ Guidi wrote on November 1, 2008. (LINK) ―If the temperature does not

increase again, I see it getting hard for those who support the theory of man-made global

warming," Guidi wrote on September 24, 2008. (LINK)

A team of scientists signed a June 11, 2007, Cornwall Alliance “Open Letter”

debunking man-made global warming fears. ―Natural causes may account for a large

part, perhaps the majority, of the global warming in both the last thirty and the last one

hundred fifty years, which together constitute an episode in the natural rising and falling

cycles of global average temperature. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases are probably a minor and possibly an insignificant contributor to its

causes,‖ the scientists declared. ―Reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have at most

an insignificant impact on the quantity and duration of global warming and would not

significantly reduce alleged harmful effects. Government-mandated carbon dioxide

emissions reductions not only would not significantly curtail global warming or reduce its

harmful effects but also would cause greater harm than good to humanity–especially the

poor–while offering virtually no benefit to the rest of the world‘s inhabitants,‖ the open

letter explained. Scientists signing the ―Open Letter‖ included: James F. Drake, Ph.D.

(Atmospheric Sciences), Project Engineer, The Aerospace Corporation, Papillon, NE;

Charles Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), Th.D., retired meteorologist, Bel Aire, MD;

Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State

University, Ames, IA; Kent A. Chambers Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry and

Environmental Science, Hardin Simmons University, Abilene, TX; Victor Goldschmidt,

Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue, University, West Lafayette, IN;

Gary O. Gray, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, Dean of the College of Science and

Mathematics, Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar, MO; Ronald C. Marks, Ph.D.,

Associate Professor of Chemistry, North Greenville University, Tigerville, South Carolina;

Michael R. Salazar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Union University , Jackson,

TN; and Daryl Sas, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA.

(LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas is an emeritus professor and former Chair

of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,

Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications such

100

as International Journal of Climatology and Geophysical Research Letters. Douglas, a

member of the American Meteorology Society, also was elected a member of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Global

Programs North American Monsoon Experiment Science Working Group. Douglas,

who has served as a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) consultant, recently

dissented from man-made climate fears. Douglas noted that the Arctic Ocean had an

extensive refreeze between November 2007 and January 2008 and the winter in China and

Siberia has been unusually brutal. ―We've really never seen anything like this for many,

many years," Douglas said, according to a February 8, 2008, article in the Capital Press.

The article noted that Douglas rejected claims that current weather is a result of man-made

global warming. ―Whatever the weather,‖ Douglas said, ―it's not being caused by global

warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.‖ Douglas also

pointed to the record cold and snow in the Southern Hemisphere last winter. "Within four

or five months, it appears that a warming trend can go very rapidly in the other direction,‖

Douglas said. The article continued: ―Douglas said he believes the weather patterns the

world is now experiencing are regional phenomena and not a global pattern. He also noted

that the warmest year on record was 1998, but questioned why, if we're in a warming trend,

it hasn't gotten any warmer than it was that year. Douglas said warming trends put more

moisture in the atmosphere, resulting in more snow, which leads to cooling. Americans

don't understand, he said, that what Europeans fear is that we may be heading into a period

of global cooling, which could push ice lower than Europe has experienced in modern

times, creating problems for ports there. After his speech, Douglas told a group of farmers

who questioned him that alarm over global warming is analogous to alarm a few decades

ago that the Great Salt Lake had shrunk so much that it could never recover. In only three

years - in the 1980s - the lake was flooding farmland and endangering highways, industries

and subdivisions, which prompted the state to build pumping stations to draw water into the

desert to evaporate.‖ (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American

Meteorological Society‟s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist

with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented

from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. ―A lot of folks have

opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well

fit into that category,‖ Point said in an interview on WeatherBrains.com on February 19,

2008. ―To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a

mistake,‖ Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged

thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S.

Navy career. (LINK) & (LINK)

Professor Dr. Don Aitkin of the University of Canberra is a former foundation

Chairman of the Australian Research Council, a member of the Australian Science

and Technology Council, and founder and past chairman of the Australian

Mathematics Trust. Aitkin expressed his skepticism of a man-made climate crisis in an

April 2008 speech. ―Is the warming unprecedented? Probably not. There is abundant

historical and proxy evidence for both hotter and cooler periods in human history. Is it our

fault? Again, maybe. The correlation of increasing warmth with increasing carbon dioxide

concentrations is particularly weak; that with solar energy and with ocean movements is

much stronger.‖ Aitkin said. ―Are we likely to see rising sea-levels? Not in our lifetimes or

101

those of our grandchildren. It is not even clear that sea-levels have risen at all. As so often

in this domain, there is conflicting evidence. The melting of polar or sea ice has no direct

effect. How reliable are the computer models on which possible future climates are based?

Not very. All will agree that the task of modeling climate is vast, because of the estimates

that have to be made and the rubbery quality of much of the data,‖ Aitkin explained. ―Why

is there such insistence that AGW has occurred and needs drastic solutions? This is a

puzzle, but my short answer is that the IPCC has been built on the AGW proposition and of

course keeps plugging it, whatever the data say. The IPCC has considerable clout. Most

people shy off inspecting the evidence because it looks like science and must therefore be

hard. The media have been captured by AGW (it makes for great stories), the

environmental movement and the Greens love it, and business is reluctant to get involved,‖

Aitkin added. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt of DC‟s Channel 9, and formerly of CNN, holds the

American Meteorological Societies Seal of Approval. Shutt expressed skepticism of a

man-made crisis. ―CO2 is just one variable in a most complex global climate. I have stated

for years that some of the effects of global warming might even be beneficial. We might

see crops grown farther north and in areas of the world that previously could cultivate

nothing,‖ Shutt wrote on April 8, 2008. ―Global warming is such a politically charged issue

that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum

from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and

debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically,‖ Shutt wrote.

―Should we instead put that money into schools, infrastructure and R & D? I am not trying

to diminish global warming but I am, like [author of Skeptical Environmentalist] Bjorn

Lomborg, attempting look at it from a different perspective. Some of the effects of global

warming have been greatly exaggerated (when the ice cubes in your drink melt does you

glass overflow?) and our money may be better spent exploring other avenues in addition to

CO2 reduction,‖ Shutt added. Shutt also wrote on April 4, 2008, ―I try and remind our

viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last

25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had

much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane

of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on

our shores.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National

Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and president emeritus of

Rockefeller University, declared his man-made global warming skepticism once again in

2008, shortly before his death. Seitz wrote the foreword in February 2008 to a report titled

―Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate‖ by a team of international skeptical

scientists released in March 2008. The IPCC ―is pre-programmed to produce reports to

support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as

envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty.‖ Seitz wrote that the 1990 IPCC Summary

―completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report

was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the

scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report

claimed the twentieth century showed ‗unusual warming‘ based on the now-discredited

hockey stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the

climate contributions from changes in solar activities, which are likely to dominate any

102

human influence.‖ ―It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties

when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe,‖ Seitz wrote. ―It is foolish to do so

when the problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by observations. As NIPCC

shows by offering an independent, non-governmental ‗second opinion‘ on the ‗global

warming‘ issue, we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of

significant climate change from other than natural causes,‖ Seitz wrote. (LINK) & (LINK)

(Note: Seitz died on March 2, 2008)

Astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

Astrophysics recently expressed skepticism of a man-made climate crisis. According to a

February 12, 2008, article, Baliunas ―suggested global warming is more directly related to

solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.‖ "If you go

back far enough you eliminate some of your variables," Baliunas said during a February 12,

2008, lecture titled "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change."

"I've always been interested with the changes of the sun and how they impact the earth. I

decided to look at a narrower time scale this time… Some people argue solar influence is

large; some argue it is small. I'm somewhere in the middle," Baliunas said. Baliunas also

noted that civilizations have historically looked for causes to climate changes. ―In 16th and

17th century Europe, thousands were executed for what was called ‗weather cooking,‘

where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor

growing periods or storms,‖ she said during her presentation, according to the article. The

article continued: ―Baliunas said concerns for world energy poverty should be more

significant than worrying about something 100 years from now.‖ (LINK)

Economist Dr. Donald J. Boudreaux, the Chairman of the Department of Economics

at George Mason University, recently announced his skepticism. ―I am a global-warming

skeptic - not of the science of climate change (for I have no expertise to judge it), but a

skeptic of combating climate change with increased government power,‖ Bourdreaux wrote

on Feburary 17, 2008. ―Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and too many others dismiss the

downside of curtailing capitalism in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. They

write and speak as if the material prosperity that capitalism brings is either not threatened

by increased government power, or is of only small importance when compared to the

threat of global warming,‖ Boudreaux wrote. ―Truly reasonable people are, and ought to

be, skeptical of each of these dogmas,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden is formerly of the Space Research and

Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, PA,

where he studied ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. Peden, a founding

member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, has been published in the

prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. Peden was also a co-developer of the

Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, which was declared one of the

“100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the

Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Peden is also skeptical of a predicted

―climate crisis.‖ ―Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just

yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, and from the onset, many of the

claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world

immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming made us

103

more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science,‖

Peden wrote in February 2008. ―We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as

‗Climate Science‘ was in it's infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does

not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two

in advance,‖ Peden wrote. ―In reading "scientific articles," one must also be very alert to

use of the word ‗if.‘ This is the killer word - the Colt .45 of sloppy or even deliberately

misleading science. ‗If‘ the sea level rises 40 feet, then certainly most of Manhattan will be

flooded. ‗If‘ the moon falls on Kansas, then certainly wheat prices are going to soar out of

site. Within a sentence or two, ‗if‘ morphs into ‗when‘ and soon everyone is convinced

that the moon is absolutely going to fall on Kansas, it's just a matter of time, we're all

doomed... unless we take immediate action to stop it. But neither of these are very likely to

happen, as we shall soon see,‖ Peden explained. ―We understand that those who jumped on

the Global warming? Bandwagon early on are now in a difficult position. Many are now

searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined,‖

he added. (LINK)

Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to

become a NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute

of Technology), dissented from global warming fears, and warned of a coming ice age.

―The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot

appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this

Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon,‖ Chapman wrote in a April 23,

2008, article tilted ―Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.‖ ―There is no doubt that

the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful

than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become

dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global

warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions

will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to

compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases,‖ Chapman explained.

―The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are

buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by

brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have

enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago,

so the ice is overdue,‖ Chapman wrote. ―All those urging action to curb global warming

need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing

global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations,

careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the

fate of civilization may be at stake,‖ he added. (LINK)

Geologist Richard Mourdock, a licensed professional geologist and former field

geologist who now serves as an environmental and energy consultant, dissented from

man-made warming fears in 2008. "I'm scared to death about each of the three [U.S.

presidential] candidates and their positions on global climate change," Mourdock, the

Indiana State Treasurer, said according to an April 25, 2008, article in the Indiana

Statesman. "Global caps in the last 15 years receded until last year on Mars, but what do

we have in common with Mars?‖ Mourdock asked. The article continued: ―With a graduate

degree in geology, Mourdock said his studies have convinced him that global warming is

not happening.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

104

Chief Meteorologist Mike Thompson of Kansas City‟s Fox TV Channel 4 is a former

U.S. Navy meteorologist who holds the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Seal

of Approval and is a certified Broadcast Meteorologist. Thompson dissented from the

view of a man-made climate crisis in 2008. "[Hurricane forecasting pioneer] Dr. William

Gray is a very outspoken critic of the global warming proponents. As such, he has been

attacked by the GW proponents, and funding for his research has dried up...he put $100,000

of his own cash into his research," Thompson wrote on April 14, 2008. "He puts his money

where his mouth is, and he would not do that were he not concerned over the derailing of

logic in climate science. This story has become all too common for those who dare speak

up, and debunk Global Warming. Gray and other scientists with strong credentials in

physics and climate science have been shouted down as climate heretics for disagreeing

with the GW crowd," Thompson explained. "It is easier to silence scientific dissent by

utilizing the politics of personal destruction, than to actually debate them on the merits of

their arguments. That should tell you something about the global warming debate...there is

none right now...it's either you believe, or you are to be discredited. It's a slow process, but

it is scary, because if someone can control your energy sources, they can control you. We

are already being told what light bulbs we can and cannot use...through legislation. We are

being forced to fund research into alternative energies sources that are inefficient, and that

cause the price of food, energy, and everything else to rise...through legislation....rather

than allow free enterprise to allocate funds to those energy sources that will survive

through good old American innovation!" Thompson added. "Even if you disagree with Dr.

Gray, and others like him, you should fight against squelching the voices of those scientists

who have spent a lifetime studying the climate, and have something very important to say.

America is all about that sort of debate!" he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, disputed man-made climate fears in 2008. ―So the bottom line is this: When it comes to

future climate, no one knows what they‘re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its

scientists, not the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National

Geographic, not the U.S. Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly

not Mr. Albert Gore,‖ Frank wrote in the May issue of Skeptic Magazine. ―But there is no

falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced

greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish

any cause at all. Nevertheless, those who advocate extreme policies to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions inevitably base their case on GCM projections, which somehow become

real predictions in publicity releases,‖ Frank explained. ―General Circulation Models are so

terribly unreliable that there is no objectively falsifiable reason to suppose any of the

current warming trend is due to human-produced CO2, or that this CO2 will detectably

warm the climate at all. Therefore, even if extreme events do develop because of a

warming climate, there is no scientifically valid reason to attribute the cause to human-

produced CO2. In the chaos of Earth‘s climate, there may be no discernible cause for

warming,‖ Frank added. ―Many excellent scientists have explained all this in powerful

works written to defuse the CO2 panic, but the choir sings seductively and few righteous

believers seem willing to entertain disproofs,‖ Frank concluded. (LINK)

Retired meteorologist Harry A. Gordon, formerly of the National Weather Service,

defended global warming skeptics and noted naturally occurring cycles dominate climate.

"Meteorologist Mike Thompson (of Fox TV) is correct in his defense of global warning

105

skeptics. A personal examination of a 100-year period of weather in Kansas City showed a

continuous series of short-term warming and cooling periods. Studies from China covered

more than a thousand years and confirmed this. No cycles have been discovered that would

help in forecasting climate changes," Gordon wrote on April 28, 2008. Gordon also decried

intimidation of scientists skeptical of warming as being based on "personal abuse instead of

scientific proof." (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Kevin Lemanowicz of Fox 25 TV in Massachusetts dissented from

man-made climate fears in 2008. "I continue to say that we have obviously warmed, but we

should not be setting policy based on an uncertain climate future," Lemanowicz wrote on

April 14, 2008. "I am not convinced we have been the dominant force in our global

warming, and I certainly don't trust climate models that are integrating thousands of

variables thousands of time-steps into the future. There is chaos inherent in these models,"

Lemanowicz explained. "One of the cornerstones of the movie An Inconvenient Truth was

the belief that global warming will cause more frequent and more ferocious hurricanes.

This belief was shared by esteemed MIT scientist Dr. Kerry Emmanuel. Well, just like that,

the tide has turned," Lemanowicz wrote, noting that Emmanuel was reconsidering his

views on the global warming-hurricane link. In a May 1, 2008, report, Lemanowicz noted

that "carbon dioxide is a good thing." He wrote: "Did you know that if the greenhouse

effect didn't exist, life on this planet would be frozen? Further, I'm sure you remember from

grade-school science that carbon dioxide is vital for life. Plants need it, and, in turn, give us

oxygen. No CO2 means no plants, which means little oxygen for us. Certainly not enough

to live on. Why, then, is CO2 called "pollution"? Is it really bad for us?" (LINK & (LINK)

& (LINK)

Geologist Jonathan DuHamel, a registered geologist of Arizona with a masters degree,

debunked global warming fears in 2008. ―I am a geologist familiar with the scientific

literature on climate change, but I have yet to see any proof or compelling evidence

supporting the assertion that human carbon-dioxide emissions have produced measurable

temperature change,‖ DuHamel told the Arizona Daily Star on April 24, 2008. ―So where

is your evidence? Put up or shut up. The current warm period is well within natural

variations,‖ DuHamel explained. In 2007, DuHamel told the paper, ―CO2 is a minor player

in the total system, and human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to total natural

greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, lowering human CO2 emissions will have no

measurable effect on climate, and continued CO2 emissions will have little or no effect on

future temperature.‖ He added: ―The current warm period is just one of six recorded since

the end of the last glacial epoch 12,000 years ago. There seems to be a 1,500-year (plus or

minus 500 years) natural cycle of warming and cooling. Data suggest that each of the

previous warm periods were up to 3 degrees Centigrade warmer than the current warm

period, and that each succeeding warm period peaked at lower maximum temperatures.

[…] While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial

effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental

effects on the economy and our standard of living.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics at the

National Autonomous University of Mexico who specializes in image processing and

prevention of natural disasters, not only rejected warming fears, but proclaimed a

coming global cooling in 2008. Velasco Herrera ―predicted that in about ten years the Earth

106

will enter a ‗little ice age‘ which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the

decrease in solar activity,‖ according to an August 16, 2008 article in Mexico‘s

Milenio.com. ―Velasco Herrera described as erroneous predictions of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), pursuant to which the planet is

experiencing a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming. The models

and forecasts of the IPCC ‗is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and

presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,‖ he said

according to the article. The article continued, ―The phenomenon of climate change, he

added, should include other kinds of factors, both internal, such as volcanoes and the very

human activity, and external, such as solar activity... In early July, Velasco Herrera said

that satellite data indicate that this period of global cooling could even have al ready begun,

since 2005.‖ (LINK) (LINK)

Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology

at Punjab University, a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of

Cincinnati, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

and a fellow of the Geological Society of India, publicly ridiculed former Vice President

Al Gore and the UN IPCC‘s coveted Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. ―I am really amazed that

the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who

are not geologists,‖ Ahluwalia, who has authored numerous scientific studies in the

fields of geology and paleontology, said during on August 8, 2008, during the Geological

Congress in Oslo, Norway, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games.

Ahluwalia referred to the UN climate panel as the ―elite IPCC.‖ ―The IPCC has actually

become a closed circuit; it doesn‘t listen to others. It doesn‘t have open minds,‖ he said.

Ahluwalia also criticized the promoters of man-made global warming fears for ―drawing

out exaggerated conclusions‖ and took the UN to task for failing to allow dissenting voices.

―When I put forward my points in the morning, some IPCC official got up to say that what

I was [saying was] ‗nonsense.‘ See, when we have that sort of attitude, that sort of dogma

against a scientific observation that would not actually end up in very, very positive debate.

We should maintain our sense of proportion, maintain our sense of objectivity, allow a

discussion -- not have fixed mindset about global warming,‖ he said to applause from the

members. (LINK) (LINK) [Note: The International Geological Congress prominently

featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming

fears. See Full report here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of

presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Analytical chemist and mathematician Sherwood Thoele rejected the ―consensus‖ view

of man-made global warming in 2008. ―I submit that there is no manmade global

cooling/warming, that there is no study or research data that makes a good argument to that

effect when carefully examined objectively and that the Earth has many different and wide-

ranging cycles that man cannot control, no matter how much he would like to,‖ Thoele

wrote on May 19, 2008 in Virginia's Roanoke Times. ―As an analytical chemist, I analyze

all the parameters and data from studies: what prompted the study, who funded it, where it

was conducted, measuring equipment accuracy and the atmospheric conditions or physical

status of that area during the study,‖ Thoele wrote. ―Because CO2 is slightly soluble in

water and will come back to the Earth with precipitation, nature corrects for any excess,

just as it does with other excess materials from volcanoes and forest fires. CO2 comes from

burning or oxidizing organic material and minerals that contain carbon. Major sources are

107

fermenting (rotting) vegetation like in swamps, compost piles, burning limestone to make

lime, gasoline or other petroleum products, volcanoes and forest fires. Nature recycles all

of what it considers excess very efficiently. CO2 absorbs some infrared radiation. Infrared

absorbers accept the radiation from any direction. Since infrared radiation is one of many

parts of visible light, the biggest source is the sun,‖ Thoele explained. ―Some say excess

CO2 combined with the moisture in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation from the

Earth to create a greenhouse effect by not letting it pass through it. But how then does the

infrared radiation from the sun get through the CO2/moisture, and wouldn't it already have

absorbed as much infrared radiation as it could handle from the sun? There is a limit to the

amount of infrared radiation that moisture/CO2 can absorb. Warmth from sunlight means

infrared radiation is getting through. The infrared radiation absorbed by the Earth will keep

it warm for a while, but as clouds linger and the sun goes down, the warmth goes away

quickly. So if there were a greenhouse effect from heat being blocked from leaving the

Earth, then the temperature on cloudy days and at night shouldn't be so different than on a

sunny day. Some claim a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in the average temperature over the

last 100 years, globally. Considering the many variables that cause temperature changes,

including the accuracy of the thermometers, the average global temperature has been

extremely stable in this short period of time relative to the age of the Earth,‖ he added.

(LINK) & (LINK)

Award-winning ecologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Perry Ong is the director of

the Institute of Biology at the University of the Philippines‟ College of Science. Ong,

who was awarded the Outstanding Young Scientist award by the National Academy

of Science and Technology in 2000 and is a former representative of Conservation

International, cited former Vice President Al Gore‘s errors and called man-made climate

fears ―hyped up‖ in 2008. ―Climate change has become a convenient excuse when there are

other [environmental] issues that need to be addressed,‖ Ong said, according to a May 18,

2008, article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. ―If we disproportionately blame ourselves for

[climate change], our response will be different … we should look at the [bigger picture]

and address other issues,‖ Ong said during a lecture called ―Anthropogenic Global

Warming: Beyond the Hype, Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason.‖ The article

continued: ―Ong said GHGs spawned by humans contribute merely 33 percent to global

warming compared to the 67 percent traced to natural causes, which include changes in

solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and the shifting of the Earth‘s tilt and orbit.‖ (LINK)

Meteorologist Mike Fairbourne of Minnesota‟s WCCO-TV, a veteran 40 year

weather expert, said man-made global warming was based on ―squishy science‖ in 2008.

According to Fairbourne, though "there has been some warming of global temperatures in

recent years ... there is still a pretty big question mark" about how much is to due mankind.

"Do we need to be wise stewards [of the Earth]? Absolutely. Do we have to pin everything

that happens on global warming? No, we need to have cooler heads,‖ Fairbourne said

according to a May 20, 2008 article in the Star Tribune. The article continued: ―Fairbourne

said he has talked ‗to a number of meteorologists, who have similar opinions,‘ adding that

he is concerned about ‗the extremism that is attached to the global warming.‘ He noted that

in the 1970s ‗we were screaming about global cooling. It makes me nervous when we pin a

few warm years on squishy science.‘ As for the melting polar ice caps, Fairbourne said

there are ‗other things going on -- ocean currents, changes in salinity -- other things not

related to carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere.‘ Asked why there has been so much

108

momentum toward connecting human activity and global warming, Fairbourne said,

‗They're doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political.

We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it.‘‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Lobert, Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German

Aeronautics, announced he was skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2008. ―As the

glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that

has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate

of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades,‖ Lobert wrote on March 4,

2008. ―The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a

natural phenomenon. 1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on

glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behavior. In

two-thirds of these 10,000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today,‖

Lobert wrote. ―There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming.

This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely

different temporal behavior in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature

varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration

has been increasing exponentially since the 1950‘s. The sea level has been rising and the

glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards,‖ he added. ―The

hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results

of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included.

The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of

solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud

cover of the Earth atmosphere,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Dave Dahl of Minnesota‟s ABC Channel 5 holds the American

Meteorological Society's Seal of Approval and rejected fears of man-made global

warming in 2008. ―Many peer-reviewed scientific papers are now looking at the real

possibility that the sun may play the main role in climate variation here on earth,‖ Dahl

wrote on May 2, 2008. ―Recent studies show that the unusually ‗quiet‘ sun may be one of

the reasons for the unusually cold winter that was experienced across much of the Northern

Hemisphere. An extremely low number of solar flares and sunspots may be linked to the

current cooling trend globally,‖ Dahl explained. A May 20, 2008 article in the Star Tribune

noted: ―Meteorologist, Dave Dahl, is of kindred global warming spirit with [skeptical

meteorologist Mike] Fairbourne.‖ (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Economist Colin Robinson is the founder of the Department of Economics at the

University of Surrey in the UK and an emeritus professor of economics. Robinson is

also a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society who has authored 25 books and 160

journal papers with a focus on energy policy. Robinson recently dissented from the

―consensus‖ on man-made global warming. ―One does not have to be a ‗climate change

denier‘ to see that a degree of skepticism about the present consensus might be in order. In

that sense, I think that the skeptics are right,‖ Robinson wrote in April 2008. ―Most likely,

now – as in the past – many analysts have become carried away by the results of their

models, which purport to look into a far distant future, and have convinced themselves that

they must embark on a crusade to enlighten others. Dissent must be discouraged and

indeed, in a mild version of the Inquisition, the views of anyone who questions the

conventional wisdom should be disregarded and, if possible, suppressed. In such a climate,

109

we need skepticism even if it brings condemnation by the top echelons of the Royal

Society,‖ Robinson explained. ―The scientific establishment regards anyone who questions

the consensus about climate change and its effects in much the same way as heretics are

regarded by religious movements. Indeed, in many ways, upholders of the consensus view

are a religious movement,‖ Robinson continued. ―In an echo of earlier times, the climate

change prophets have in recent years tried to silence counter views and suppress dissent.

August members of the Royal Society, a body once noted for its cultivation of debate in

science, are now leaders of the ‗science is settled‘ camp: the only debate they consider to

be legitimate is about choice among the different forms of the centralized action they

believe is required to deal with the problems they foresee,‖ he added. ―Human myopia

cannot be overcome simply by well-meaning attempts to build models that purport to peer

decades and centuries ahead. Action taken now, in anticipation of supposed long run

trends, may concentrate on the wrong issues and make matters worse rather than better,‖ he

concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist Patrick Carroll, a retired Environment Canada meteorologist, publicly

rejected global warming fears in 2008. ―The IPCC theory of anthropogenic warming is a

hoax that is rapidly falling into disfavour among atmospheric scientists,‖ Carroll wrote on

June 9, 2008 in Canada‘s The Hill Times. ―Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion (of Canada) is a

gullible fool in continuing to believe that CO2 emissions drive climate change. He is

whistling past a political graveyard if he thinks that Canadians will accept billions more in

taxes to reduce and sequester CO2 emissions when there is zero proof that such activities

will have any measurable, let alone detectable, effect on global temperatures. In short, Dion

has been a victim of the alarmist propaganda emanating from the IPCC and radical

environmentalists such as David Suzuki,‖ Carroll explained. ―If Dion had advisers who

were keeping up with the latest research and climate data, he would have been informed by

now that the IPCC theory of anthropogenic warming is a hoax that is rapidly falling into

disfavour among atmospheric scientists. Instead, he continues to blunder along listening to

clueless alarmists like Mr. Suzuki,‖ he added. (LINK)

Dr. Robert Smith, professor of chemistry at University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO),

recently spoke out against anthropogenic global warming fears, concluding from his

studies that it does not present a threat to the future of mankind. Dr. Smith has been

teaching at UNO since 1990 and is the author or co-author of 38 articles in scholarly

journals. According to a UNO Gateway article from November 18, 2008, ―Smith takes the

position that carbon dioxide will not drastically impact the world, arguing that water is the

leading green house gas and global warming is actually beneficial. ‗All models appeal to

water changing the temperature as the principle agent for increase in temperatures,‘ Smith

said. ‗I simply want to teach students how to think; and to think properly, they need all the

information.‘ The amount of carbon dioxide in comparison to the amount of water that is

affecting global warming is minimal, Smith says. Ice ages are eminent and the next one

will happen in the next 2,000 years.‖ [LINK; Bio: LINK]

Jon Loufman, a meteorologist for Cleveland‟s Channel 19 Action News, spoke out

against anthropogenic climate change fears in 2008. ―A past president of the Northeast

Ohio chapter of the American Meteorological Society, Jon Loufman holds a masters degree

in his field and was inducted into the Ohio Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 2002.‖ In a

December 2, 2008, article spotlighting Cleveland-area TV meteorologists, Loufman, who

110

has taught meteorology courses at both Case Western Reserve University and Lakeland

Community College, said, "Climate records also show that long before industrialization,

the Vikings had settled in Greenland because it was warm enough . . . I think the jury is

still out on this." [Article LINK and LINK]

John Lott, Jr., who has a Ph.D in economics, is a senior research scientist at the

University of Maryland and has published over 90 articles in academic journals. In his

March 3, 2008, article arguing against man-made climate change, ―Global Warming: Is It

Really a Crisis?‖, Lott said, ―Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from

the late 1970s to 1998, but ‗there has been no net global warming since 1998.‘ Indeed, the

more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling [...] Mankind is

responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and

greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).‖

[Article LINK; Bio LINK]

Meteorologist Al Lipson, a member of the National Weather Association and former

lead forecaster at the Weather Channel and Accuweather, has 35 years of experience

in operational meteorology and dissented in 2008. ―I am a Global warming skeptic,‖

Lipson wrote to EPW on March 8, 2008. ―[Promoters of climate fear] want to make money.

Billions of dollars are being funneled into research. Computers models are predicting what

will happen if Global warming continues,‖ Lipson wrote. ―Yep I know all about models. I

use them to forecast everyday. They are never wrong. That‘s why I have a perfect forecast

100 percent of the time. Can one of you geniuses come up with a model that will predict

where the new coastline will be so I can buy some beachfront property at a cheap price?‖

he added with sarcasm. ―I don't doubt that climate changes. In that, there is no dispute.

However, I must join the ranks of many scientists who dispute that global warming is

taking place at such a rate that it will have apocalyptic consequences the alarmist theorize. I

feel mans‘ influence on climate is a micro influence Nature has a tendency to balance itself

on a macro scale,‖ he continued. ―Extreme weather events happen. Quit spinning research

to foster monetary and political agendas. That's dishonest science. No debating, that's

dishonest science. Hopefully we are beginning to see political climate change to Global

Warming. More and more scientists are having the courage to step forward with scientific

evidence, as well as common sense arguments against it. The Global Warming crusaders

will not debate the issues. Can they not back up their claims, or if they debated other

scientists would their case just fall apart?‖ he concluded.

Dr. Peter Friedman, who is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at

University of Massachusetts- Dartmouth and a member of the American Geophysical

Union, spoke out against the alleged “consensus” of global warming in 2008. ―Several

respected climate scientists have told me that there would be even more vocal skeptics if

they were not afraid of losing funding, much of which is controlled by politically correct

organizations,‖ Friedman wrote on March 11, 2008. ―The IPCC ‗policy summaries,‘

written by a small group of their political operatives, frequently contradict the work of the

scientists that prepare the scientific assessments. Even worse, some of the wording in the

science portions has been changed by policy makers after the scientists have approved the

conclusions,‖ Freidman explained. Freidman ridiculed the notion of a ―consensus.‖

―Having frequently attended related conferences including the American Geophysical

111

Union, I have observed quite the opposite. There is consistently vigorous debate in these

technical sessions,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

University of Western Ontario physics professor Wayne Hocking, who heads the

Atmospheric Dynamics Group and is co-editor of the 1990 book The Earth's Middle

Atmosphere, dissented from anthropogenic climate change in 2008. Hocking says it is

important to look to the poles – the Arctic and Antarctic poles – to find the truth about

global warming and other atmospheric changes, but with all of the data he has collected on

atmospheric changes over the last 15 years, Hocking is hesitant to claim he can make any

predictions about global warming. ―For this to be effective, we need to be there for 20, 30,

40 years, have a long-term data set and then we can start to make useful predictions,‖ he

says. He says researchers do not know enough about the atmospheric changes and how they

influence each other to draw any conclusions about global warming. ―We know there is so

much complexity involved, we want to tread more cautiously,‖ he says. ―Maybe in 10 years

time, it‘ll all start to freeze over, we just don‘t know.‖ Hocking cautions against focusing

solely on global warming, but rather to view it as one of many atmospheric changes that

must be researched and understood. ―I think it‘s too narrow of a view,‖ he says. ―You‘ve

got to consider everything together and see global warming as part of a larger picture rather

than something in isolation.‖ […] ―I‘m not against global warming, but I want people to

realize it is only one of many dynamic events that occur in the atmosphere and we need to

understand them all,‖ he says. Hocking recently presented his polar research to a crowded

room at the Physics and Astronomy Colloquium. [LINK and Bio here]

Charles Clough, an atmospheric scientist and Chief of the Atmospheric Effects Team

with the Department of the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground from 1982 until 2006,

spoke out against man-made climate change on October 6, 2008. ―Government

officeholders at federal and state levels assume that current global warming is chiefly, if

not entirely, due to mankind‘s growing carbon dioxide emissions, but they have not

examined the science enough,‖ Clough said. ―It certainly does not follow logically that

CO2 emissions drive a warming trend that began prior to widespread fossil fuel use and

that has yet to reach the magnitude of the medieval warm period when Vikings colonized

Greenland. Nor is a climate catastrophe implied by the presently observed rate of warming.

Those conclusions are reached only if one accepts two intermediate steps: (1) that science

has separated anthropogenic effects from natural climate oscillations; and (2) that the

atmosphere-ocean system is metastable so CO2-induced warming will trigger a runaway

process. Neither point has widespread support among those of us who have actually

worked with atmospheric processes. Not only is the debate not over; it is expanding. Let‘s

hope that as the fall semester gets underway , science teachers will motivate their students

to study the anchor questions of points (1) and (2) rather than accept a document generated

by a U.N. bureaucracy that provided no final comment by its scientific authors. Too many

valuable resources are needed for justifiable environmental management to waste them on

a speculation for which there is no scientific consensus. Such inverted pyramids are

dangerous.‖ (LINK)

Award-winning Meteorologist Brian Sussman, a member of the American

Meteorological Society (AMS), former member of the AMS Education Advisory

Committee, and formerly of KPIX-TV CBS in San Francisco, is the author of the

forthcoming book Global Whining: A Denier‟s Handbook. ―Mankind's burning of fossil

112

fuels is allegedly warming the planet. This hypothesis couldn't stand the test of an eighth

grade science fair. And if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you're branded a 'denier,‘‖

Sussman told EPW on January 3, 2008. ―Well fine. I'd rather be called a 'denier' than try to

push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy,‖ Sussman added.

Meteorologist Allen Barr, who holds a masters degree in Meteorologist, refuted climate

fears in a talk to Montana lawmakers in 2008 According to a March 2, 2008, article, Barr

said he didn‘t ―think human behavior was behind global warming.‖ (LINK)

Environmental scientist Dr. Kenneth P. Green of the American Enterprise Institute

refuted man-made climate fears in 2008. ―While I believe that Earth has experienced a

mild, non-enhanced greenhouse warming which will continue in the foreseeable future, I

think the chaotic nature of the climate system makes projections of the future climate no

better than science fiction,‖ Green wrote EPW on March 6, 2008. ―I am intensely skeptical

of the entire process of predictive climate modeling, from its ability to meaningfully predict

the climate in the future, to its ability to tell us how much of activity A would result in

climate change B. These models have so many parameters that can be arbitrarily ‗tuned‘ as

to make them little more than a tool for mathematizing the fantasy scenarios of the

programmers who set up and run the programs,‖ Green explained. (LINK)

Chemist and process engineer Ferdinand Engelbeen spoke out in 2008 against dire

global warming predictions. ―Why ‗skeptical‘? As I have some experience with models, be

it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a

simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are

exactly known,‖ Engelbeen wrote on his website in November 1, 2008. ―To make a

climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any

accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such

models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball,‖ he

explained. ―Kyoto in my opinion is a waste of money which will cost much without any

benefit,‖ he added. (LINK)

Frank Wachowski, a retired atmospheric scientist for the National Weather Service,

rejected the notion of a consensus about global warming in 2008. ―The jury is still out,‖

Wachowski said, according to a March 19, 2008 article. ―Obviously, it appears that the

Arctic is getting warmer and causing problems for polar bears and other animals. But are

we doing it? It has become a big political issue,‖ Wachowski explained. ―We don‘t have a

long-enough period to study yet…everything goes through cycles,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane

Research Division of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in

Miami strongly protested the notion that most scientists agree with man-made climate

change theories in 2008. ―It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is

only a fringe of scientists who don‘t buy into anthropogenic global warming,‖ Goldenberg

said on August 18, 2008. ―Not all scientists agree that the warming we‘ve seen is

necessarily anthropogenic,‖ Goldenberg added. ―There are those who want to attribute any

perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropomorphic global warming. I predict that if

we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They‘re not really

looking at the science; they‘re looking at the disaster,‖ he added. Goldenberg also praised

the skeptical climate change conference in New York City in March 2008. ―The fact is that

113

this conference is evidence that there are numerous respected, established and in many

cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of

‗climate change‘ that sharply differ with the [UN] IPCC results,‖ Goldenberg told the New

York Times. (LINK) (LINK)

Mechanical Engineer Dan Pangburn, a licensed engineer with master in Mechanical

Engineering and author of a climate research paper, dissented in 2008. ―For most of

earth‘s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present,‖

Pangburn wrote in his paper on March 15, 2008. ―The conclusion from all this is that

carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Actions to control the

amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on

the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity,‖ he added.

(LINK)

Physicist and engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, a former Division Chief Scientist for

Hughes Aircraft Company, is an expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave

propagation in the atmosphere solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics. Glassman

has conducted several studies on CO2 and climate including a July 6, 2007, paper titled,

―Solar Wind has Twice the Global Warming Effect of El Niño.‖ Glassman is blunt, writing,

―The consensus of climate mistakenly attributes solar wind warming to man-made carbon

dioxide.‖ Glassman has researched ice core data and concluded, ―CO2 concentration is a

response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause. This does not

contradict that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it does contradict the conjecture that the

presence of a greenhouse gas has any destabilizing effect on global climate. Other forces

overwhelm the conjecture of a runaway greenhouse effect. The concentration of CO2 is

dynamic, controlled by the solubility pump. Global temperature is controlled first by the

primary thermodynamic loop.‖ Glassman concluded, ―The Vostok data support an entirely

new model. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Fires, volcanoes, and now man

deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, but those effects are transient. What exists in steady state

is CO2 perpetually pumped into the atmosphere by the oceans. Atmospheric CO2 is a

dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean. Public policy

represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be

scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile.‖ (LINK)

Chemical Engineer Bob Ashworth holds 16 U.S. patents on fuels and emission control

techniques, has written 55 technical papers on fuel technologies, and is a member of

the American Geophysical Union. Ashworth authored a 2008 technical analysis of

global warming titled “No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global

Warming!” ―Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As

CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to

increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated,‖ Ashworth wrote on

December 9, 2008. ―The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never

blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for

their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our

climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food

because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth,‖ Ashworth wrote. (LINK)

114

Chemical Engineer Ed Rademacher, who holds a masters degree and is a licensed

Professional Engineer with an expertise in operating equipment that removes

pollutants from the atmosphere, dissented in 2008. ―Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

and, in fact, is a desired,‖ Rademacher wrote to EPW on April 4, 2008. Rademacher has

researched global warming claims. ―I utilize my perspective as an engineer to evaluate the

available data to determine the data's validity. I do the same for the various claims seen

being issued by the participants in the ongoing climate debate,‖ Rademacher wrote. ―To

date, global warming alarmists have not come close to providing any valid scientific data

that proves humans are the sole source of changes in so-called global average temperatures.

Quite simply, correlation between the carbon dioxide levels and the global average

temperatures does not prove a causal relationship,‖ he added. (LINK)

Physicist Dr. John Blethen runs the global warming skeptic website

Heliogenic.blogspot.com. Blethen is blunt in his climate change views. ―The Sun, not a

harmless essential trace gas (CO2), drives climate change,‖ Blethan declares on his website

in 2008. Blethen highlights the dire predictions of global warmng and counters, ―Someone

should tell these people the globe has been cooling.‖ (LINK) Blethen also endorsed the

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science

Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part: ―There is no convincing evidence

that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the

future cause catastrophic climate change.‖

Professional Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch of Canada spoke out against climate

fears in 2008 by analyzing rising CO2 impacts. ―There is zero warming possible from

further increases in CO2,‖ Kalmanovitch wrote in November 2008. ―The temperature

record shows that the global temperature has been increasing naturally at a rate of about

0.5°C/century since the Little Ice Age. The forcing parameter is based on the full measured

0.6°C/century without subtracting the natural warming of 0.5°C/century giving a forcing

parameter that is 6 times larger than can be attributed to the measured increase in CO2,‖

Kalmanovitch wrote. ―Far less obvious, but the major fatal fl aw of the forcing parameter is

that it is based on an observation of temperature and CO2 concentration without taking into

account the actual physical properties of CO2 and its limited effect on thermal radiation as

defined by quantum physics,‖ he added. (LINK)

Scientists from 40 countries signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change,

sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). The 2008 declaration

states in part, ―Global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the

actions of humans, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all

life; the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense

debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed

‗consensus‘ among climate experts are false.‖ The declaration concludes, ―There is no

convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is

now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.‖ A sampling of scientists

signing the declaration as of June 19, 2008, included: Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth

Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research

Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada; John Brodie, BASc.,

MASc. (Metallurgical), P.Eng., Director Environmental Affairs, British Columbia Railway

Co., Surrey; Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional

115

geology, tectonics and mineral deposits; Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC,

Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury,

Ontario; Les McDonald, RP Bio; Senior Impact Assessment Biologist, BC Environmental

Protection (retired), Consulting Aquatic Biologist; John W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD

(Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama, U.S.A.;

Gregory J. Balle, B.E., MSc., PhD. (Joint Aerospace Engineering and Geophysical Fluid

Dynamics), Pukekohe, New Zealand; Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry),

Professor Emeritus, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; Colin Barton, PhD, Earth Science,

Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Matthew Bastardi, BSc

(Meteorology, Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.; M.I. Bhat, Professor

(Tectonics, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir), Sprinagar,

Jammu & Kashmir, India; Frederick Bopp, PhD (Geology), Environmental Consulting,

Owner, Earth Quest, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. U.S.A.; Bruce Borders, PhD, Forest

Biometrics, Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of

Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.; James Brooks, BS, PhD, Geophysics, Adelaide,

Australia; Stephen Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York),

Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative

Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska

Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A.; James Buckee, PhD

(astrophysics), Calgary, Alberta, Canada; James Clarke, BS (Meteorology), TV-

Meteorologist, WZVN-TV, Ft. Myers, Florida, U.S.A.; Michael Clover, PhD

(experimental nuclear physics); Computer Simulation, Senior Scientist, Science

Applications International Corp., San Diego, California, U.S.A.; Martin Coniglio,

Meteorologist, KUSA-TV, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.; Claude Culross, PhD (Organic

Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.; Michael Coffman, PhD,

(ecosysytems analysis and climate change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of

Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.; Dalcio K. Dacol, PhD (physics,

University of California at Berkeley), physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory,

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography,

Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research,

Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.; Per Engene, PhD, Biologist, Valenvegen, Norway; Donald W.

Farley, P.Eng, M.Eng. (Water Resources Engineering & Hydrology), Gatineau, Quebec,

Canada; Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and

energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and

Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia; Louis Fowler, BS

(Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air

Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.; Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American

Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of

Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics,

University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical

phenomena, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.; Maureen T. Gallagher, PhD, (Geology,

Micropaleontology), Consultant, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Rigoberto Garcia, MC,

Climate Change and Urban Sustainability, Doctorate Student, El Colegio de México,

México City, DF, México; David Gray, PhD (EE Stanford U., Electromagnetic Wave

Transmission (in Atmosphere, and fiber)), Asst Professor of Engineering, Messiah College,

Grantham, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; Charles Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics),

systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle,

116

Oklahoma, U.S.A.; D. Hebert, PhD, Faculty for Chemistry and Physics, Institut fur

Angewandte Physik, Freiberg, Germany; Hug Hienz, PhD, (Chemistry, University of

Mainz, Germany), former Professor of Organic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry,

Germany; Ted Hinds, BS (Engineering Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), PhD

(Physical Ecology, U. Washington, Seattle), Quantitative empirical analyses regarding

climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses,

consultant for USA EPA research on global climate change program. Senior Research

Scientist, retired, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S.A.;

Ole Humlum, PhD, Physical Geography, Professor, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;

Steve Hynek, BS (Meteorology), Air Quality Analyst, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La

Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A.; Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range

Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Green River,

Wyoming, U.S.A.; Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm

Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist for

Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.;

Harald Kehl, PD Dr. rer. nat., Ecosystem Analysis, Lecturer, Researcher, Berlin,

Germany; Olav M. Kvalheim, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Bergen,

Bergen, Norway; Rune B. Larsen, PhD (Geology, Geochemistry), Associate Professor,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; Jay

Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology),

Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; Edward Liebsch, MS

(Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), BA (Earth Science & Chemistry, St. Cloud

State University), Air Quality, Meteorology, Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR, Inc.,

Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A.; Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology),

Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and

Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.; Endel Lippmaa, Prof.Dr.habil (Physics,

Chemistry), Chairman - Energy Council of the Estonian Academy of Science, Tallinn,

Estonia; Keith Lockitch, PhD (Physics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Science

and Environmental Policy, Resident Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute, Irvine, California, U.S.A.;

Björn Malmgren, PhD, University Professor, Paleoclimate Science, retired, Lerum,

Sweden; Les McDonald, RP Bio; Senior Impact Assessment Biologist, BC Environmental

Protection (retired); Consulting Aquatic Biologist, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada;

Rob Meleon, PhD, biochemist, CSO Pepscan, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Amos Meyer,

Theoretical Physics, Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Modeling, Chief Scientist,

Westport, Connecticut, U.S.A.; Michael Monce, PhD (Physics), Atomic/Molecular,

Energy and Environment, Professor of Physics, Connecticut College, New London,

Connecticut, U.S.A.; Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather

Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp

Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.; Peter Oliver, BS, MS, PhD, FGA, Geology, Geochemistry,

Paleomagnetism, Research Scientist, retired, Upper Hutt, New Zealand; Curtis Osgood,

BS (Meteorology, Lyndon State College), Consulting Meteorologist,

Forecaster/Consultant, Granby, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; Donald Parkes, PhD, BA (Hons),

MA, retired Professor Human Ecology, Australia and Japan; Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS

(Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

in Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the

public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.; Patrick Powell,

BS (Meteorology/Physical Geography, Western Illinois University), AMS Board of

Broadcast Meteorology, CBM, Chief Meteorologist, WLUK-TV, Green Bay, Wisconsin,

117

U.S.A.; George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Henriques

Renato, PhD, Geology, Auxiliary Professor, University of Minho, Braga, Braga, Portugal;

Robert G. Roper, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of

Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A; Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western

Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental

Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Robert

Roseman, Meteorology & Climatology, TV Meteorologist, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.;

Clive Schaupmeyer, M.Sc., P.Ag. , Coaldale, Alberta, Canada; Milos Setek,

Meteorologist/Statistician, Senior Scientist, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia;

John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial

Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, United Kingdom; Vedat Shehu, Prof. Dr. Eng.,

Geologist, Engineering Geology, Tectonics, Geoingineering, Sharon, Massachusetts,

U.S.A. and Professor "Geoingineering Research Unit" in Tirana, Albania; Richard F.

Shepherd, ARCS (Mathematics), PhD, DIC (high energy physics), FIMA (numerical

analysis), FBCS (director of computing centre, retired), Pembroke, United Kingdom;

Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development

Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.; Arlin Super, PhD

(Meteorology), Weather Modification, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.; Wojciech J. Szalecki, PhD (Organic

Chemistry), Senior Scientist, formerly University of Lodz, Poland, and University of

Colorado, now in Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.; Malcolm Taylor, Dip ES (Climatology and

Hydrology specialization), Power Systems Analyst, Otago, New Zealand; Göran Tullberg,

Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), currently teacher of

Environmental Protection Engineering and Organic Chemistry at University in Växjö;

Falsterbo, Sweden; Roderick W. Van Koughnet, BS (Geology), MS (Geology

(Geophysics), Wright State University), Senior Geoscientist, L&M Petroleum, Wellington,

New Zealand; Gösta Walin, Professor, oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg

University, Göteborg, Sweden; Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Electronic

Properties of Materials, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National research

Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Jack Wedel, BS (Geography),

Arctic Hydrology, retired, Environment Canada, Keewatin, Ontario, Canada; James Weeg,

BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Associate

Professor, Environmental Geology, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South

Carolina, U.S.A.; Rich Weiss, BSc (Meteorology, Valparaiso University), Meteorologist,

Supervisor of Meteorology, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; Forese-Carlo Wezel, Professor of

Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and

paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy; Arnold Woodruff, M.Sc.

(Atmospheric Physics, U.C.W.Aberystwyth), B.Sc. (Physics, Durham), Terrestrial &

Spaceborne Exploration Geophysics, Consultant Geophysicist, Woodruff Exploration &

Production Ltd., Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, U.K.; Chris Yakymyshyn, PhD, MS, BS

(EE/Physics), Instrumentation, Vice President Technology, Field Metrics Inc., Seminole,

Florida, U.S.A.; Roger Young, BS, MS, D.I.C. F.G.S., Geophysics, Geophysical

Consultant, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England; Josef Zboril, MSc. (Chemistry), Board

Member, Confederation of Industry, Prague, Czech Republic; Stan Zlochen, MS

(Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A. (LINK) (LINK)

Former chemistry professor Dr. Ron Smith, the Director of International Relations

and Security Studies at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, whose

118

research focuses on the interface between science and society, questioned man-made

climate fears in 2008. ―As is well-known, there is serious and persistent skepticism in

regard to both the magnitude and the direction of climate change and the degree to which it

may be said to be anthropogenic. This might be a largely ‗academic‘ question were it not

for the fact that measures of taxation and regulation are proposed that have the potential to

cause significant harm to the economic well-being of New Zealand,‖ Smith wrote on June

4, 2008. ―The consequence of suppressing the deviant view may not be simply that we

remain in ignorance. It may be that we embark on policies that are likely to be very

damaging to us and only marginally advantageous (if at all) to the wider global

community,‖ Smith explained. There is a need for a substantial and wide-ranging debate

and this must surely mean that at least one of the political parties contesting the up-coming

election must offer an alternative to the prevailing un-wisdom on climate,‖ Smith added.

―Given that the world will very likely continue to increase its production of greenhouse

gases (and in the light of the earlier-expressed doubts about the causation and extent of any

climate change) there should surely be some thorough-going review of the facts before

New Zealand, to its very considerable detriment, elects to fulfill what it sees as its Kyoto

commitments,‖ Smith wrote. ―It may be that even if we satisfied ourselves that the

scientific data pointed (with whatever degree of certainty) to undesirable change, caused by

human activity, we still might conclude that we should not proceed with measures now

proposed on the grounds of the damage that these will cause to New Zealand interests, both

collective and individual,‖ he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chemist Tom Kondis, a consultant with practical experience in absorption and

emission spectroscopy, dissented in 2008. ―To support their argument, advocates of man-

made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared

absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth's surface like

molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously

flawed,‖ Kondis wrote in a May 21, 2008, essay titled ―Greenhouse Gas Facts and

Fantasies.‖ ―The fictitious ‗trapped heat‘ property, which they aggressively promote with a

dishonest ‗greenhouse gas‘ metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural

absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws

of physics. Their promotional embellishments have also corrupted the meaning of

‗greenhouse effect,‘ a term originally relating the loose confinement of warm nighttime air

near ground level by cloud cover, to hot air trapped inside a greenhouse,‖ Kondis

explained. (LINK)

Dr. Klaus P. Heiss, formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, and a space

engineer who has worked with NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission and the

Office of Naval Research. Heiss received the NASA Public Service award for unique

contributions to the US Space Program and is a member of the International

Astronautics Academy. Heiss dissented from what he termed the ―alleged climate

catastrophe‖ in 2007. ―The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO 2 grew exponentially; however, global

temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial

production almost exploded. Then [temperatures] rose strongly to 1990 and they have since

stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly the same level, although CO 2

emissions are still rising,‖ Heiss wrote in a September 7, 2007 commentary titled ―No

Reason For Hysteria.‖ ―The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO 2

119

is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming,‖ Heiss explained. ―Carbon dioxide

is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what

then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate

fluctuations. One is the sun's activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-

cycles occur and sunspots,‖ Heiss continued. ―Looking at the climate history of our planet,

it is clear to see - and quite reassuring with regard to the possible consequences of global

warming as predicted by the IPCC -- that we are now (more precisely, in the last two to

three million years ago) in a very cold climate period. Any warming would give us only the

best long-term climate of the last 560 million years back,‖ he added. ―Moreover, despite all

the proposed measures and their enormous costs, most professional economic studies

indicate that warmer times are generally better,‖ he concluded. (translated) (LINK)

Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie

Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. ―I am worried about climate

change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I

have very little confidence that we know what is causing it,‖ Kling wrote in a December

21, 2007 commentary. ―One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some

drastic amount, only to discover that--oops--it turns out that climate change is being caused

by something else,‖ Kling explained. ―I am not a skeptic about the rise in average

temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has

been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two,‖ he

wrote. (LINK)

Dr. R. W. Bradnock, former Head of Department of Geography at the School of

Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and currently a Senior Visiting Research Fellow

at King‟s College London (KCL), has published field-based research on sea level and

environmental change and dissented in 2008. ―In my own narrow area of research, I know

that many of the claims about the impact of ‗global warming‘ in Bangladesh, for example,

are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent

years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural

production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has

nearly doubled,‖ Bradnock wrote on June 9, 2008. ―There remain many academics from a

wide range of fields who question the evidence, and who believe that the catalogue of woes

directly attributed to ‗global warming‘ cannot be reduced simply to an increase in the

proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million by volume to

c.384 ppmv - the increase that has taken place as a result of the intensive use of fossil fuels

since the beginning of the industrial revolution,‖ Bradnock added. (LINK) (LINK) Chemical Engineer Dr. Thomas L. Gould, an award-winning engineer with the

Society of Petroleum Engineers, dissented from climate fears in 2008. ―Global warming

is dominated by the sun, clouds, water vapor, and other factors before any influence is felt

by CO2,‖ Gould wrote EPW on June 10, 2008. ―Even if you accept the alarmist view that

the seas will rise and this is a ‗Planetary Emergency‘, why do we think that we can solve

this problem with climate control, costing $10‘s of Trillions? We need to change the

debate, and not let the alarmists set the agenda,‖ Gould wrote. ―I have been doing a lot of

personal research into the short comings of the Global Warming alarmist theories,‖ he

added. (LINK)

120

Dr. Jon Hartzler, a retired science professor from St. Cloud State University in

Minnesota declared himself skeptical in 2008. ―We are left with what we call correlations,

like increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature. This is not proof, only

suggestive in science,‖ Hartzler wrote on June 30, 2008. ―The Chinese laugh at the Kyoto

Protocol and the ‗civilized‘ world trying to fix ‗global warming.‘ Our puny little effort (but

very costly) when China refuses and puts their economy first makes us seem insignificant.

It seems to me there are lots of reasons for an informed person to be skeptical of global

warming and its ‗solutions.‘ Also, no one seems to acknowledge the huge benefits to crop

production of warmth and carbon dioxide.‖ Hartzler also signed the 2008 Oregon Petition

dissenting from man-made climate fears. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that

human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in

the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in

atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and

animal environments of the Earth,‖ states the petition that Hartzler signed.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Aerospace Engineer and Physicist Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo

Space Program for NASA, dissented from man-made climate fears in 2008. ―High

humidity is the reason nights are so balmy in the tropics. At 100 degrees F and 100%

relative humidity, water vapor accounts for only 2% of the atmosphere. It has a greater

effect than all other greenhouse gases combined but, since it cannot be regulated, is rarely

mentioned as a greenhouse gas,‖ Hartmann wrote on July 3, 2008. ―Our mainstream media

uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man-made global warming by repeated

reporting of data and events that appear to support it, and ignoring those that contradict it,‖

Hartman explained. ―Hopefully man made global warming will come to be recognized for

the hoax it truly is,‖ he added. (LINK)

Dr David Stockwell, an ecological modeler who has published research articles on

climate change in international journals and authored a 2006 book about “niche

modeling,” questioned global warming theory in 2008. ―The increase in temperature due to

the greenhouse effect has a maximum. At this maximum, additional greenhouse gas

absorbers do not increase the temperature, to the limits detectable in this setup,‖ Stockwell

wrote in an article titled ―Home Science Experiment Disproves Global Warming Theory‖

on November 13, 2008. Stockwell has also criticized the UN IPCC. ―Two claims made in

the IPCC Chapter 3 Section 3.4 p40 of WG1 are obviously false,‖ Stockwell wrote on June

23, 2008. ―Use of dubious evidence and false claims to support a theory indicates the

degree of confirmation bias operating in global warming,‖ he added. ―It would be

recognized that the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that.

Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for

climate change are out-of-scope, creating a systematic bias against natural explanations for

climate change. I think climate models are inadequately validated, confidence in the skill of

models to forecast global warming is vastly exaggerated, and current skill is not enough to

serve useful purposes,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Chemist and Engineer Daniel P. Johnson rejected global warming fears in 2008. ―I have

dealt with real world data for 30 years and honed what skills I possess into the ability to

look at data and derive the best understanding possible from it. I went into this adventure

121

with the idea of seeing for myself whether the anthropogenic position was correct or the

only credible explanation based on the available evidence. I still must admit to a strong

relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming since 1970 but feel, based on

the above, that it is only one potential contributor to global warming and that the changing

geomagnetic field is another major player in what has occurred during this same period,‖

Johnson wrote in May 2008. ―I find this, overall, somewhat reassuring since, to me, it

offers some hope with regard to the future unlike the gloom and doom prognostications

being promulgated based on the increasing CO2 models,‖ Johnson explained. (LINK)

Professor Dr. Geoffrey Kearsley, a geographer developing a program in

environmental communication at the University of Otago and director of Wilderness

Research Foundation, dissented from global warming fears in 2008. ―It is said that we are

now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalized or

determined and that all scientists agree. Skeptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in

the pockets of the big oil companies. This is unfortunate, to say the least. Science is rarely

determined or finalized; science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will

certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new

understandings,‖ Kearsley wrote on July 17, 2008. ―The longer trends tell us that by 2020,

we will be experiencing an unusually low-energy sun. Apparently, these are exactly the

conditions that preceded the Maunder Minimum and ushered in the Little Ice Age. The

science goes on. Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas by a huge factor. The link

between CO2 and temperature change is erratic; often, carbon follows heat rather than the

uncritical popular perception that heat is induced by carbon. The oceans are a vast reservoir

of dissolved CO2; as they warm, they release it and reabsorb it as they cool. Which causes

what? There is much more yet to learn,‖ Kearsley added. ―There is an increasing body of

science that says that the sun may have a greater role. If it does have, then global warming

is likely to stop, as it appears to have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails

to ignite, then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate.‖ (LINK)

Earth Scientist Greg Benson, who has 30 years of geologic study and 25 years of

experience as a research specialist in geologic modeling, rejected climate fears in 2008.

―The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (black line) has changed greatly since

fossilized life began on Earth nearly 600 million years ago. In fact, there is only 1/19 as

much CO2 in the air today as there was 520 million years ago. That high CO2 was hardly

the recipe for disaster,‖ Benson wrote in a July 15, 2008, analysis. ―Geologists and

climatologists are certain that the Earth has gone through periods both warmer and colder

than what we call 'normal' today. The planet has gone through these temperature

fluctuations on a regular and generally predictable cycle, and there is overwhelming

evidence that it has been doing this throughout geologic history,‖ Benson explained.

―Geologists and paleoclimatologists know that in the past the Earth's temperature has been

substantially warmer than it is today, and that this warming has occurred under purely

natural circumstances. Until we can say precisely how much of the current global warming

and greenhouse gas increase is the result of this normal temperature cycle, we will not be

able to measure how much human activity has added to this natural trend, nor will we be

able to predict whether there will be any lasting negative effects,‖ he added. (LINK)

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the

UN IPCC as “the biggest ever scientific fraud” in 2008. ―The Kyoto theorists have put

122

the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide

in the atmosphere, not the other way round,‖ Kapitsa said in a July 10, 2008, article on

Hindu.com. ―A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference

in Madrid vanished without a trace,‖ the Kapitsa says. ―As a result, the discussion was one-

sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,‖

Kapitsa explained. ―We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period

but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2.‖

(LINK)

Dr. Robert A. Perkins, PE, is an associate professor of civil and environmental

engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He is a registered civil engineer in

California and Alaska and has worked in arctic and sub-arctic for over 30 years. He

is a scientist as well as an engineer and specializes in risk analysis and presentation.

Perkins dissented in 2008. ―All the ‗science‘ that you read about global warming is based

on models, not observed facts. Here are some reasons to doubt the models: Akaike proved

that the more parameters a model needs to fit the historical data, the less certain the model

will predict the future,‖ Perkins told EPW on December 10, 2008. ―All the climate models

are incredibly complex, hence ‗over-parameterized.‘ The climate models, however, do not

even fit the present data, at least in the Arctic,‖ Perkins explained. ―Finally, none of the

published models that ‗blame‘ human activity for the warming trend account for the known

historical variations in global climate. The underlying physical drivers of those known

historical variations are not known; hence they cannot be subtracted from the current

climate prediction models,‖ he added. (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Claude Culross slammed warming fears in 2008. Culross declared there

was a “complete dearth of experimental proof for man-made global warming” on July

23, 2008. ―Fossils from our Holocene Era reveal a northern tree line approaching the Arctic

Ocean. Surely it was warm enough then to preclude pack ice, and perhaps summer ice,

from natural causes, and at only three-quarters of today‘s carbon-dioxide level,‖ Culross

wrote. ―Climate that seems unusual, but falls within the natural envelope of past climate, is

no proof of man-made global warming. Dire predictions of catastrophe from that

bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are

based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not

experimental proof,‖ Culross explained. ―There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide

causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.

Problem mitigation and conservation are the right approach,‖ he added. (LINK) & (LINK)

Culross also signed the 2008 Manhattan Declaration which stated in part ―that there is no

convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is

now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.‖ (LINK)

Biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Lynwood Yarbrough, who ran a research lab

and served as a consultant for the National Institutes of Health, dissented in 2008.

―Several years ago I began reading the literature on climate change that was appearing in

Science, Nature, and other peer-reviewed journals. I did so because I was concerned at the

alarmism I was seeing in the media regarding ‗global warming‘ and the dire predictions of

some in the scientific literature,‖ Yarbrough wrote on July 23, 2008. ―I consider myself a

scientific skeptic and want to be convinced by the data before I accept something as ‗true‘

(see Freeman Dyson at edge.org on skepticism in science). As a biologist, I am aware of a

123

number of cases in which science has been led in directions not based on hard evidence.

Examples include Malthus and the Malthusian Theory, Lysenkoism in the old Soviet

Union, and eugenics in the U.S. and elsewhere (see the excellent archive at Cold Spring

Harbor for examples of such ―science.‖) ―Kyoto is a failure and a new approach is badly

needed,‖ he explained. (LINK) (LINK)

Chemical Engineer Ian McQueen disputed any potential global warming threat in

2008 during a presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Society. "Carbon dioxide is not the

bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change,

to the extent that it has changed," McQueen said according to a July 24, 2008, article. The

article reported, ―Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32

per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide

content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped

to 560 parts per million, Earth's temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.‖ (LINK)

Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia's Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) who was awarded the

Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (ASEG) Gold Medal in 2006,

established the consortium for research in electromagnetic modeling and inversion.

(Bio Link) ―The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between

human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here

in Australia and around the world,‖ Raiche wrote on July 21, 2008, in the Australian. ―The

eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person

who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the

dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means,‖ Raiche wrote. Raiche has criticized

CSIRO for its man-made global warming advocacy. ―As an example, consider the Garnaut

Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia‘s

history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO‘s modeling programs,‖ Raiche wrote

according to a July 27, 2008, article in the Herald Sun. But CSIRO ignores these

reservations and continues its role in hopes that they prove that organization‘s relevance by

scaring the populace,‖ Raiche explained. ―It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its

use-by date. The organization that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common

with the organization that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for

Australia during its first seven decades,‖ he added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Mathematician Dr. Muriel Newman, a member of the Northland Conservation Board,

declared “growing numbers of people [are] now questioning the whole basis” of man-

made climate fears in 2008. ―Around the world, as controversy over climate change

continues to grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not

only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly

not settled. In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global

warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of

fossil fuels in order to prevent ‗catastrophic‘ warming, the world continues to cool,‖

Newman wrote on July 27, 2008. ―That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to

sacrifice living standards in order to ―save the planet‖ is just political spin designed to

persuade the public to accept green taxes. […] With growing numbers of people now

questioning the whole basis of the man-made global warming theory, there is increasing

speculation that the defeat of the British Labour Party in the local body elections and more

124

recently in the by-election in their former safe seat of Glasgow East is indicative of a

change in the mood of the British public against the government‘s climate change agenda,‖

Newman added. (LINK)

Japanese Scientist Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science

and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan and former vice deputy

president at the Shibaura Institute of Technology, dissented in 2008. ―Global warming

has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For

millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now,

the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference

one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do.

Every scientist knows this, but it doesn‘t pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of

economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that

keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming,

as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver‘s seat and developing nations walking

barefoot,‖ Takeda said, according to a July 22, 2008 article. (LINK)

Astrophysicist Dr. Dennis Hollars dissented from man-made climate fears in 2008.

"What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth,"

Hollars, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from New Mexico State University, said.

According to a November 20, 2008, article Hollars added that ―carbon dioxide was an

insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor

of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.‖ "Mars'

atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming," Hollars stated. Hollars

previously declared ―man made global warming is basically flawed science at this point.

We do not have sufficient temperature data to even decide if there is a planetary scale

warming, let alone what the cause might be. In the ‘70s it was global cooling that was the

scare - by many of the same people who are pushing warming now, using models that are

not even close to reality.‖ (LINK) (LINK)

Marcel Severijnen, former head of Environmental Monitoring Department of the

Province of Limburg in the Netherlands, declared the global warming ―debate should

remain open‖ in 2008. ―‗Debate closed‘ is a deadly pitfall, unworthy to integer researchers.

Any result of research, be it measurements or modeling should be open to confirmation or

denial from other researchers. That is the only way to come closer to the real world,‖

Severijnen wrote on August 6, 2008. ―Policymakers might have declared the debate on

climate change as closed, as even scientists joined them. Scientists should however strive to

improve their understanding of the real world, maybe even stronger in cases where a

seeming majority has decided to end the debate,‖ Severijnen explained. ―As most air

pollution models use GCM-like modelling for predictive purposes, one can imagine the

similarity in uncertainty between air pollution modelling and climate modelling. As far as I

see, only little is done to confront climate model results with real world observations.

Climate scientists could learn from their air pollution colleagues, and experience and accept

the limits of their models,‖ Severijnen added. (LINK)

Dr. Roger W. Cohen, an American Physical Society (APS) fellow who earned a

doctorate in physics, worked in the electronics industry, and retired in 2003 from

ExxonMobil as manager of strategic planning, said he reversed his views of man-made

climate change and is now a skeptic. ―I retired four years ago, and at the time of my

125

retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's

case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the

time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is,‖

Cohen wrote on August 6, 2008. ―I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who

helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am

referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright

fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC

process and the science process itself. At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC

position is seriously flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of

the observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its projections for effects

in the 21st century,‖ Cohen explained. (LINK) Cohen is so confident of a lack of global

warming that he ―issued a public challenge Jan. 20 on The Durango Herald op-ed page,

betting $5,000 that the globe's average temperature will be cooler in 2017 than it was in

2007.‖ (LINK)

Meteorologist Tom McElmurry, certified as a meteorologist in 1954 by the United

States Air Force, is a member of the American Meteorological Society a member of

the Israel Geological Society and a former tornado forecaster in the Kansas City

Severe Weather Service; he has also written scientific articles published by the USAF

and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. McElmurry rejected climate

fears in 2008. ―Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to

solve a problem which doesn‘t exist but say no to drill off shore for a real one. Its

misapplied atmospheric science for profit,‖ McElmurry wrote on August 7, 2008. ―Packs of

rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets. As a

Meteorologist I find it scientifically Dishonest!‖ McElmurry explained. ―I do believe that

excess carbon dioxide emissions are not favorable to the earth‘s atmosphere, and that

efforts should be made to reduce them, but the claims of the effects some are saying will

come on the earth if we do not drastically reduce them, are fantastically blown out of

believable proportion,‖ McElmurry added. ―The money we are about to spend on

drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists who have

such expertise readily available at the right price. And some politicians are standing in line

to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts, for

the purpose of developing new ways to drastically reduce the emissions. In case you

haven‘t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the

horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents,‖ McElmurry

explained. (LINK) (LINK)

Professor Larry Bell of the University of Houston has a forthcoming book, Climate

Hysteria, which is dedicated to Al Gore because the former Vice President‟s

“invention of facts made it necessary.” ―Many questions remain to be answered

regarding the real significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as a climate forcing factor

and related rising sea level consequences projected by the [UN] IPCC,‖ Bell, who is

internationally for his contributions to the design of space habitats and systems, including

the International Space Station, wrote on June 18, 2008. ―First, there is no incontrovertible

evidence to support contentions that pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels were consistently

lower than the 380 ppm recorded now. More than 90,000 published measurements carried

out between 1812 and 1961 indicate that atmospheric levels were actually rising before the

Industrial Revolution. They reached about 440 ppm in 1820, dropped to about 390 ppm by

126

1855, and rose back to about 440 ppm by 1940,‖ Bell explained. ―Cause and effect

relationships between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from all sources and

global temperatures are inconclusive. Although carbon dioxide levels have generally been

observed to increase during warm periods and fall during colder ones, the temperature

changes typically lead rather than follow carbon dioxide changes. For example, records

indicate that carbon dioxide concentrations fall at the start of ice ages, when more of the

gas is absorbed by colder oceans, and levels rise during glacial retreats when the processes

reverse,‖ Bell continued. ―The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

estimates that about 97 percent of that small amount originates from natural sources, and

further, that all atmospheric carbon dioxide may account for less than 10 percent of total

greenhouse influence. In comparison, water vapor, by far the primary greenhouse gas, may

account for 70 percent or more of the very small total warming effect,‖ he added. (LINK)

(LINK)

Geologist Dr. W.J. “Bill” Collins, a professor at the School of Earth and

Environmental Sciences at Australia‟s James Cook University, dissented in 2008. ―As

the climate change debate moves from the scientific to the political, it is important to stay

with the facts. The bottom line is that humans cannot prevent global warming. Therefore,

we should not be forced into emissions trading schemes, or any other scheme that sacrifices

Australia‘s economic advantage and standard of living for the wrong reasons,‖ Collins

wrote on August 13, 2008. ―Sure, let us try to lessen our environmental impact and develop

a sustainable economy, but we should not be carried away by misconceptions about what is

driving climate change. It‘s with the Earth itself,‖ Collins explained. (LINK) (LINK)

Agricultural scientist John Williams, a researcher, author, and educator who is

studying for a PhD at the University of Melbourne, dissented in 2008. Williams said

that ―there are ‗strong and powerful counter-arguments‘ to the theories on global warming

and carbon trading that are not being fully considered.‖ ―There is no proof that carbon

dioxide is causing or precedes global warming,‖ Williams wrote on August 15, 2008. ―All

indications are that the minor warming cycle finished in 2001 and that Arctic ice melting is

related to cyclical orbit-tilt-axis changes in earth‘s angle to the sun,‖ Williams added.

(LINK)

Dr. Peter Dailey, director of Atmospheric Science at Boston based AIR Worldwide, a

risk modeling and technology firm specializing in risks associated with natural and

man-made catastrophes, weather and climate, rejected the notion that there is a

―consensus‖ on global warming in 2008. ―There is now a near consensus that global air

temperatures are increasing, however, there is no consensus on how this has affected the

temperature of the world‘s oceans, and in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, or how much of

the recent warming trend is attributable to man‘s activities,‖ Dailey said according to an

August 18, 2008, article. In the article, Dailey noted that ―recently published studies

indicate that hurricane activity could decrease as a result of other competing factors. ‗For

example, simulations of tropical cyclone activity carried out at the GFDL using climate

conditions projected for the 21st century indicate the potential for decreased hurricane

activity under more pronounced global warming conditions, and cautions against a reliance

on statistical extrapolations of recently elevated activity levels through the end of the

century,‘ he said.‖ ―For the layman, there is sometimes a tendency to regard every new

‗discovery‘ or scientific finding from the latest published paper as an inviolate fact,‖ Dailey

127

said. ―In reality, rarely is there ever a last and final word in studies of complex systems

such as earth‘s environment. Rather, science is a dynamic process based on the scientific

method in which researchers test hypotheses leading to new discoveries, but also reexamine

earlier theories and try to improve, build upon, or extend them,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Indian Geologist Dr. Ritesh Arya, who specializes in hydrogeology and groundwater

resources in the Himalayas, has authored several research papers and was invited by

the Royal Geographical Society in 2005 to discuss climate change. Ayra, who has been

the recipient of the Great Indian Achievers Award 2004 and the Bharat Excellence

Award 2003, rejected man-made climate fears in 2008. ―There is urgent need to put the

phenomenon, which had not been triggered off suddenly, in the right perspective as today

almost every human activity right from vehicular emissions to use of polythene is being

linked to global warming which was a much larger event which started as soon as the Ice

Age ended. The fact was that the ‗biotic‘ agents (man and other living organisms) had a

very small role compared to the ‗abiotic‘ (geological, geomorphologic, climatologic,

planetary and hydrological) events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis,

movement of glaciers and landslides,‖ Arya told The Tribune on February 18, 2008.

According to the article, Arya termed ―the hype and panic over ‗global warming‘ as

‗unnecessary.‖ ―'There is a hype of global warming created by western mass media and

there is a need to redefine the whole concept,‖ Arya also said on June 14, 2008. He also has

been recognized by the Guinness World Records for his ―achievement in finding

groundwater in the Chushul area at an altitude of more than 14,000 ft.‖ (LINK) (LINK)

(LINK)

Meteorologist John Takeuchi did an interview with the Vacaville, CA Reporter and

rejected claims that current climate is unusual in 2008. ―The atmosphere has periodic

warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's

surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them.

Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature,‖ Takeuchi wrote on

July 10, 2008. ―Global warming proponents claim that human activity is increasing CO2 in

the atmosphere - that's true - and that the increased CO2 is causing air temperature to rise.

Studies, however, point elsewhere. When long-term plots of global temperature and CO2

content are overlaid, CO2 lags temperature. There must be another culprit,‖ Takeuchi

explained. ―Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature

rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun -

are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere,‖ he added. ―Politicians have come to see

global warming as a way to raise revenue by rationing CO2 production with schemes such

as the ‗cap and trade‘ legislation now in Congress. The taxes assessed for producing CO2

could be huge. But global warming as proclaimed by Al Gore and Co., is a hoax,‖ he

added. (LINK)

Dr. Kevin Warwick is an award-winning Professor of Cybernetics at the University of

Reading, England, where he carries out research in artificial intelligence, control,

robotics and biomedical engineering. Warwick, whose research interests include

robotics and Cybernetics in particular apart from areas like artificial intelligence,

control, and biomedical engineering, has won many awards including The Future of

Health technology Award from MIT. Warwick also rejected global warming theory in

2008. ―I am afraid that I do not hold with the theory of ‗global warming‘ – there will

128

always be climate change and from the point of view of someone in a wet-cum-cold

England, things appear to be getting colder, not hotter,‖ Warwick said according to a

September 24, 2008, article. ―Big thing here is – do we know what we are doing that is

bringing about climate change? At present the answer to this is NO,‖ Warwick explained.

(LINK) (LINK)

Veteran Meteorologist Al Kaprielian of WZMY TV-50 in New Hampshire, who has

been forecasting for 25 years, rejected the notion that the science is ―settled‖ in 2008.

When asked his views about global warming during a September 12, 2008, interview,

Kaprielian replied, ―We don‘t have enough data right now. We‘ll have to wait and see what

future weather brings.‖ (LINK)

Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Chemist Dr. Theodore G. Pavlopoulos, who served in

the Navy as a physicist for 37 years and is a member of the New York Academy of

Sciences, rejected man-made global warming fears in 2008. ―CO2 is a rather harmless

green house gas,‖ Pavlopoulos told EPW on September 25, 2008. ―CO2 in air has been

branded as the culprit for causing the green house effect, causing global warming.

However, regularly omitted is another important green house gas also present in air and in

much higher concentration. It is water vapor. In the air, it absorbs infrared radiation (heat)

more strongly than CO2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is considerable

lower than that of water vapor; it is just a few percent. Consequently, doubling the CO2

concentration would not significantly increase the combined absorption of the two green

house gases of water vapor and CO2,‖ Pavlopoulos explained. ―Green activists don‘t

acknowledge the critical role oceans play in influencing CO2 concentrations in our air. It

has been estimated that our oceans contain as much as fifty times more dissolved CO2 than

found in our atmosphere,‖ he added.

Analytical Chemist Michael J. Myers, who specializes in spectroscopy and

atmospheric sensing, declared his skepticism in 2008. ―I am troubled by the lack of

common sense regarding carbon dioxide emissions. Our greatest greenhouse gas is water.

Atmospheric spectroscopy reveals why water has a 95 percent and CO2 a 3.6 percent

contribution to the ‗greenhouse effect.‘ Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year

total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere's CO2

concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the

absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number. The yearly

increase is many orders of magnitude smaller than the standard deviation errors for CO2

concentration measurement,‖ Myers wrote in a September 25, 2008, essay titled ―Numbers

Don‘t Add Up for Global Warming.‖ ―‗Scientific‘ computer simulations predict global

warming based on increased greenhouse gas emissions over time. However, without

water's contribution taken into account they omit the largest greenhouse gas from their

equations. How can such egregious calculation errors be so blatantly ignored? This is why

man-made global warming is ‗junk‘ science,‖ Myers added. (LINK)

Dr. John Nicol, Chairman of the Australia Climate Science Coalition and a former

Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University, dissented from climate change

fears in 2008. ―The claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists

that global warming is the result of increased man- made emissions of CO2, has no basis in

fact,‖ Nicol wrote on September 10, 2008. ―There is no evidence, neither empirical nor

129

theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can

have any effect on global climate,‖ Nicol explained. ―The fundamental requirement of

reproducible evidence has been lost in the process of promulgating the messages regarding

the output from the experimental computer models providing suggestions of global

warming for the IPCC reports. No two of these 23 models provide the same values of

temperature – the results are not reproducible,‖ Nicol added. ―That human-caused global

climate change is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural changes has not

been accepted. Rather our governments are being subjected to calls to provide policies

based on unsubstantiated assertions of largely non-scientific executives of the IPCC, who

ignore the uncertainties expressed in the main scientific reports of the International

Panel. Evidence that no changes have been observed in Monsoonal activity, snow in the

Himalayas, the rate of glacial retreat and the rise of sea level is conveniently ignored or

presented as perceived evidence of ‗change,‘‖ he added. ―The best scientific advice

available at present is to ‗Follow the Sun.‘ Adaptation to climate change will not be aided

by imprudent restructuring of the world‘s energy economy in pursuit of the mitigation of an

alleged 9 C dangerous human-caused warming that can neither be demonstrated nor

measured,‖ Nicol concluded. (LINK)

Veteran Meteorologist William R. Young denounced the cause of climate change in

2008. ―As a meteorologist with 37 years of practical experience and a master's degree

in meteorology, I can tell you that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard,‖

Young wrote on October 4, 2008, after then Vice President nominee Senator Joe Biden

blamed mankind for global warming. ―We can all debate global warming and how much of

an impact it has had and will have on our future weather, but not all change is the result of

man. If he would question that, have him (Biden) give me a call,‖ Young added. (LINK)

Physics professor Wayne Hocking heads the Atmospheric Dynamics Group at the

University of Western Ontario, has an extensive list of scientific publications, co-

edited of the 1990 book The Earth's Middle Atmosphere, and dissented in 2008.

Scientists ―do not know enough about the atmospheric changes‖ to ―draw any conclusions

about global warming,‖ Hocking, who presented his polar research to the Physics and

Astronomy Colloquium, said according to an October 9, 2008 article. The article reported,

―Hocking is hesitant to claim he can make any predictions about global warming. ‗For this

to be effective, we need to be there for 20, 30, 40 years, have a long-term data set and then

we can start to make useful predictions,‘‖ Hocking said. ―We know there is so much

complexity involved, we want to tread more cautiously,‖ he says. ―Maybe in 10 years time,

it‘ll all (the icecaps) start to freeze over, we just don‘t know,‖ he explained. The article

continued, ―Hocking cautions against focusing solely on global warming, but rather to view

it as one of many atmospheric changes that must be researched and understood. ‗I think it‘s

too narrow of a view,‘ he says. ‗You‘ve got to consider everything together and see global

warming as part of a larger picture rather than something in isolation.‘‖ ―I‘m not against

global warming, but I want people to realize it is only one of many dynamic events that

occur in the atmosphere and we need to understand them all,‖ he says. (LINK) (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Kenneth Rundt, a bio-molecule researcher and formerly a research

assistant and teacher at Abo Akademi University in Finland, declared his global

warming dissent in June 2008. ―Let me state immediately before you read on that I count

myself among the ‗skeptics‘,‖ Rundt wrote in a scientific paper titled ―Global Warming –

130

Man-made or Natural?D on June 16, 2008. ―I am only a humble scientist with a PhD

degree in physical chemistry and an interest in the history of the globe we inhabit. I have

no connection with any oil or energy-related business. I have nothing to gain from being a

skeptic,‖ Rundt explained. ―My personal belief is that natural forcings have more

importance than anthropogenic forcings such as the CO2 level,‖ Rundt wrote. ―It can also

be reliably inferred from palaeoclimatological data that no uncontrolled, runaway

greenhouse effect has occurred in the last half billion years when atmospheric CO2

concentration peaked at almost 20 times today‘s value. Given the stability of the climate

over this time period there is little danger that current CO2 levels will cause a runaway

greenhouse effect. It is likely, therefore, that the IPCC‘s current estimates of the magnitude

of climate feedbacks have been substantially overestimated,‖ Rundt wrote. According to

Rundt, even a doubling of CO2 levels from 317 ppm to 714 ppm ―would increase

absorption approximately 0.17%. This corresponds to an additional radiative forcing of

0.054 W/m2, substantially below IPCC‗s figure of 4 W/m2. An increase of this order

would not result in a temperature increase of more than a tenth of a centigrade.‖ ―The

biggest problem for the pro-IPCC scientific community is that there are no means to

experimentally determine the effect of an increasing CO2 level,‖ Rundt wrote. ―IPCC‘s

spokesman Al Gore has often claimed that the ‗science is settled‘, but there is a growing

group of scientists critical against the claims of ‗settled science‘ and overwhelming

‗consensus,‘ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Ecologist Dr. John R Etherington, formerly Reader in Ecology at the University of

Wales, declared that CO2 has ―close to zero correlation with temperature.‖ ―Carbon

dioxide, supposedly the major driver of man-made climatic warming, has inexorably and

uniformly risen in concentration for every one of these years, with close to zero correlation

with temperature. The previous three years 1998-2000 also show no temperature

correlation with change, but 1998 was an atypically warm El Niño year,‖ Etherington wrote

on October 18, 2008. ―We are making some of the most expensive global decisions ever,

on the basis of what atmospheric physicist James Peden has described as ‗computerized

tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses,‘‖ Etherington added.

(LINK)

Meteorologist Justin Loew of Wisconsin‟s WAOW-TV and Great Lakes Weather

Service rejected climate fears in 2008. ―Call me skeptical, but I think the headlines have

shifted dramatically over the last year [to "climate change"] in response to the fact that the

earth hasn't warmed one degree since 1998. In fact, the average global temperature has

gone down slightly,‖ Loew wrote on October 27, 2008. ―I do get skeptical of the

motivation of some of the scientists and media outlets when they use ‗climate change‘

instead of AGW. After all, the problem, as we are told, is human caused climate change,

not ‗climate change‘ in general. I guess on the most basic level ‗climate change‘ will

always force humans and life on this planet to adjust and cope, but that is not what has been

in the headlines for nearly 20 years. The drill has been ‗global warming‘ = ‗climate change‘

= AGW = the end of the world,‖ Loew added. ―I suppose it might start to sound silly

saying ‗global warming‘ when the globe hasn't warmed for 10 years. If the AGW theorists

are confident in the global climate model predictions of environmental Armageddon, then

they should not be afraid to continue using the term ‗global warming‘ or more accurately,

AGW,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

131

Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew

on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for

the U.S. Geological Survey, has received numerous awards in his career including the

Space Center Superior Achievement Award and the NASA Distinguished Service

Medal. Schmitt, a member of the Geological Society of America, American

Geophysical Union, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, rejected man-made climate change concerns in 2008. ―The ‗global warming scare‘ is being

used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and

decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities,‖ Schmitt wrote on November

17, 2008. ―As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective

to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming in when human experience,

geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‗Consensus,‘ as many

have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science,‖ Schmitt explained. (LINK)

(LINK)

Australian long-range weather forecaster Haydon Walker who runs World Weather dissented in 2008. ―Until someone can show me further evidence, I am unconvinced,‖

Walker said on November 2, 2008, about of man-made climate change concern. ―I have

[weather] charts from the year dot, back prior to the Industrial Revolution. ―I am disgusted

with what we are putting into the atmosphere but I believe the climate change debate is too

politically driven,‖ Walker explained. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Professional Engineer William K. Graham, the Past Chair of the Lake Michigan

States Section, who is a regional organization of the Air & Waste Management

Association, a non-profit technical, scientific, and educational organization, dissented

from global warming fears in 2008. ―For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable and

falsifiable. The theory of global warming is being tested and data proves it is coming up

short,‖ Graham wote in the group‘s October 2008 newsletter. ―Predictive models

overestimate climate sensitivity by excluding some effects of cloud cover. Corrected

models forecast minor to negligible temperature change,‖ Graham explained. ―While the

theory of man-induced global climate change may be a casualty here, the greater casualty is

Science itself. The scientific community and media have taken the world for a costly ride.

The environmental community may have said ‗the sky is falling‘ once too often,‖ he added.

(LINK)

Research Hydrologist Charles Perry, of the U.S. Geological Survey, questioned rising

CO2 concerns in 2008. Perry acknowledges a warming trend, but notes that current temps

have not reached the level when Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Warm

Period. ―Therefore, the magnitude o f the modern temperature increase being caused solely

by an increase in carbon dioxide appears questionable,‖ Perry said according to a

November 15, 2008 article. According to the article, Perry‘s research has ―connected

events in world history with climate fluctuations—and has correlated those fluctuations

with increases or decreases in the amount of total radiant energy reaching the earth.‖

Perry‘s ―projections show the current warm period may be ending and that the earth‘s

climate may cool to conditions similar to the Little Ice Age between the years of 2400 and

2900 following a slight cooling between 2000 and 2l00. Between 2l00 and 2400, cooling

picks up steam.‖ (LINK)

132

Dr. William DiPuccio, a retired weather forecaster in the US Navy and former

Meteorological Technician for the National Weather Service, dissented in 2008. ―We

should be cautious about placing our faith in climate models that vastly oversimplify the

actual climate system. Supporting evidence for the IPCC‘s projections does not warrant the

high level (90%-95%) of confidence exhibited by its authors. Much less should these

projections be used, at this point, for making public policy decisions,‖ DiPuccio wrote in a

November 17, 2008 analysis. ―Though the latest IPCC report (2007) concludes that global

warming, due to increased CO2, is a virtual certainty, the authors themselves raise

fundamental doubts about our scientific understanding of radiative forcing agents and

climate change, both past and present,‖ DiPuccio explained. ―There are disagreements

surrounding the residence time of CO2—i.e., how long it remains in the atmosphere before

being absorbed. Does it continue to accumulate for centuries as some scientists contend, or

is it absorbed more rapidly by ‗sinks‘ such as vegetation (which thrive on increased CO2

levels) and oceans as suggested by some data?‖ he added. ―The media will continue to

hype this issue, focusing on the most sensational statements and events. Apocalyptic

views, like those of Al Gore and James Hansen (NASA), have dominated the public

discussion and classroom education,‖ he added. (LINK)

Physicist and Neuroscientist Dr. Gregory Young is a, currently engaged in

experimental biophysical research, dissented from global warming fears in 2008. ―There

is a huge problem with the idea that Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a globally polluting gas,

much less one that causes climate change and global warming. Even though some data

seemed to initially substantiate the AGW thesis, these ideas were later proven to be

wrong,‖ Young wrote on November 21, 2008. ―Let me assure you that we're not in good

humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by taking the other side in this debate.

And our numbers are still growing. Indeed, we're angry that the vast majority of American

Scientists will not be heard by the media,‖ Young added. Young also noted that former

Vice President Al Gore‘s scientific mentor Roger Revelle had differing views on CO2

driving global warming. ―Even Roger Revelle understood that there were greater variables

at play than the trace gas of CO2. Before he died, Revelle gave interviews and wrote letters

stating that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. He

told Omni Magazine, in March 1984, that "CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather

extremes" -- not cause them. One cannot argue that CO2 was a causative factor --

especially since CO2 was apparently following temperature trend -- not moderating it. It

seems none of his followers, Gore in particular, heeded his words,‖ Young explained.

(LINK)

Canadian Climatologist Cliff Harris of Long Range Weather service dissented from

warming fears and predicted a coming global cooling. ―In the past 10 years, especially the

past couple of years, the Earth's climate has begun to cool, even though CO2 emissions

have soared on a worldwide scale. How many years of declining temperatures will it take

to finally break up Al Gore's 'global warming consensus'? Only time will tell-- probably

when all the money runs out,‖ Harris wrote on November 16, 2008. ―These alternating

natural climatic cycles defy the so-called ‗climate consensus‘ that human-emitted carbon

dioxide was responsible totally for the recent cycle of global warming that began in the late

1970s and peaked in 1998. Several Canadian environmental scientists agree that the new

Jason satellite indicates at least a 23-year cycle of global cooling ahead. Count me in!‖

Harris wrote. ―This oceanographic satellite shows a much larger than normal persistent

133

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Cooler PDO phases usually last 21 to 25 years, so we

should be quite chilly as a planet until at least 2030, maybe longer. Remember, I have

another cycle of intense global warming, as I mentioned at our March 2, 2007 climate

seminar at the Coeur d'Alene Re sort, due by 2031 to 2038, when all of my major cycles

'collide in chaos,‘‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Consulting Chemist and Forensic Scientist Dr. Jim Sprott of Auckland, NZ dissented

from the climate change ―consensus‖ in 2008. ―The projections of the IPCC are simplistic,

superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the

mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled,‖ Sprott wrote in an analysis on

November 18, 2008. ―The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The man-

made climate change proposition fails. And with it fails the whole panjandrum of carbon

trading,‖ Sprott added. ―The postulated connection between atmospheric temperature and

atmospheric CO2 has broken down, and therefore the ―greenhouse gas‖ proposition has

failed. The disparity between the IPCC prediction and observed data continues to widen,

and no amount of rhetoric can alter this,‖ he added. (LINK)

Geologist Marc Hendrickx, a professional geologist working to assess geologic risks

and currently obtaining his PhD rejected man-made global warming fears in 2008.

―We're not scared anymore Mr. Gore!‖ declares Hendrickx‘s new 2008 parody book A

Climate Change Story For Little Skeptics. ―The contention that recent rises in global

temperature as measured by satellites are due solely to increased concentrations of CO2

from anthropogenic sources is misplaced. Temperature rises due to CO2 emissions have

already been accounted for and input of additional CO2 will not result in increased global

temperatures on their own. This is due to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and

temperature. This relationship explains why carbon dioxide levels have been much higher

during past geological eras and have not resulted in run away greenhouse conditions,‖

Hendrickx wrote to EPW on November 21, 2008. ―Computer models are often cited as

providing evidence that warming is entirely caused by CO2, however computers models do

not constitute evidence. Computer models have not been able to predict temperature

changes over the last 20 years and even the IPCC admit that long term prediction of future

climate states is not possible. Why would anyone rely on current computer models to

predict climate 100 years into the future given their obvious limitations?‖ Hendrickx asked.

―Arguments in favor of AGW based on the notion of ‗consensus‘ are not valid. It only

takes one fact to falsify a theory,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Associate Professor of Chemistry R. John Muench of Heartland Community College

in Illinois dissented in 2008. ―Global warming alarmism is more religion than science. The

believers have their messiah, Al Gore, who is not a scientist and has refused all monetary

offers to debate the science,‖ Muench wrote on November 27, 2008, in an article titled

―Natural cycles cause global warming, cooling.‖ ―Current data does not support that any

warming is occurring. Satellite data shows that temperatures have been steady for the last

10 years and nowhere near the projections cited by‖ proponents,‖ Muench wrote. ―After

examining [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer's work, I am convinced that observed climate

changes are mostly natural. Unlike the believers who refuse all debate, I would welcome

any opportunity to present my evidence,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

134

Former Belgian Meteorologist and Astronomer Jean Meeus, who specializes in

spherical and mathematical astronomy and has authored numerous studies and

books, dissented from man-made global warming concerns. Meeus rejected the notion that

skeptics of warming are dwindling. ―My own impression, however, is that the number of

those ‗remaining‘ skeptics is increasing! Al Gore has exaggerated, and now comes the

reaction,‖ Meeus wrote in (LINK) (LINK)

Jack Dini, a materials engineer and section leader of fabrication processes at

Lawrence Livermore National Labs, dissented in 2008. ―Thirty years ago we were

supposedly headed into a cooling cycle akin to the Little Ice Age [Click here to see an

actual document from that time.] Now, it's an unprecedented heating cycle. If you ask me,

that's an awfully quick time for a flip-flop on the weather,‖ Dini wrote on April 1, 2008 in

an article titled ―No Consensus On Global Warming.‖ ―If the 14 billion year cosmic history

were scaled to one day, then 100,000 years of human history would by 4 minutes and a 100

year life-span would be 0.2 seconds. So, in less than 0.1 second in cosmic time we've

switched on climate change. Seems like we need a few more cosmic time seconds to gather

more data,‖ Dini wrote. (LINK)

Biologist Dr. Nasif Nahle, whose research focuses on earth sciences and who has

published extensive research on solar influences and biology, is a patron for the

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and recognized by the

Autonomous University of Aguascalientes in Mexico. Nahle challenged global warming

theory in 2008. ―We could fail if we think that the change of temperature was caused by the

CO2 when the reality is that the Sun was what heated up the soil,‖ Nahle concluded in a

June 12, 2008, scientific analysis of climate change. ―The carbon dioxide only interfered

the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786

Joules), but the carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Do never forget two important

things: the first is that the carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the

main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun,‖ Nahle explained. ―Planet Earth would

not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably,

our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have

no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar

System,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Dr. Keith Lockitch, who holds a PhD in Physics and is a researcher in science and

environmental issues for the Ayn Rand Institute, rejected global warming concerns in

2008. "Despite the constant assertion that global-warming science is 'settled,'" Lockitch

said, "it is far from certain that we face any sort of catastrophic global emergency,‖

Lockitch wrote on February 21, 2008. ―But in the name of 'saving the world' from

unproven threats, such activists want to impose a draconian regimen of taxes, laws,

regulations and controls that would affect the minutest details of our existence. Their

solution to their projected 'environmental disaster' is to impose an actual economic disaster

by restricting the energy that powers our civilization and subjecting its use to severe

political control,‖ Lockitch wrote. "Let us not allow panic over the exaggerated claims of

climate alarmists to deliver us into the hands of would-be carbon dictators,‖ he added.

(LINK)

135

Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek dissented in 2008.

Marusek conducted solar research and concluded in a 2008 analysis: ―The sun is a major

influence on climate change on Earth in that it provides solar irradiance that warms the

planet and a far reaching magnetic field that shields Earth from the effects of galactic

cosmic rays, which cools the planet…This paper looks at the relationship between the solar

magnetic field (as expressed in ‗AA Index‘) and ocean surface temperature over the period

from 1880 A.D. to present and finds this relationship is best expressed by a natural

logarithmic function.‖ (LINK) Marusek rejected global warming theory as well. ―The

anthropological global warming (AGW) hypothesis would have us believe that global

temperatures are rising as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels in Earth‘s atmosphere

and that humans are the primary cause of this increase,‖ he explained. ―An opposing

hypothesis - natural global warming (NGW) - believes the rise in recently observed

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is driven by natural global warming and by volcanic

activity and that humans have little effect in altering Earth‘s climate,‖ Marusek wrote.

(LINK)

Climate researcher Willis Eschenbach, who has published climate studies in Energy

and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature, dissented from man-made climate fears in 2008. ―I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they

are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science,

they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data,‖

Eschenbach wrote to EPW on February 20, 2008. ―As an example of the ridiculous state of

climate science, the major discussion revolves around the global surface temperature. We

have different major groups (HadCRUT, GISS, GHCN, NOAA) each keeping a ‗global

temperature record‘, and all of them are different,‖ Eschenbach explained. ―Even with a

Freedom of Information Act request, I couldn't get HadCRUT3 to divulge their data ...

that's not science. The most basic numbers in the field, and we don't know how they are

calculated, and they are not shared,‖ he added. (LINK) Eschenbach also refuted the

attempted resurrection of the ―Hockey Stick‖ temperature graph in 2008. (LINK)

Professional Engineer Allan M.R. MacRae of Alberta, Canada, authored a scientific

analysis critical of man-made global warming in 2008. ―The IPCC‘s position that

increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature

data,‖ MacRae wrote on February 5, 2008. Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration

lag (occur after) variations in Earth‘s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states

that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming - in effect, the

IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC‘s core scientific conclusion is

illogical and false,‖ MacRae explained. (LINK)

Dr. Alex Storrs, an Associate Professor at the Department of Physics, Astronomy &

Geosciences at Towson University, dissented in 2008. ―I gave a talk at the event here

(Towson Univ.) titled ‗Science, Skepticism, and Global Warming‘, and am still walking

upright. I pointed out how skepticism is central to the scientific enterprise and raised the

question ‗What if it‘s not CO2?‘‖ Storrs wrote to CCNET newsletter on February 8, 2008.

―[I] pointed out that by averaging the results of different climate models, rather than

investigating the strengths and weaknesses of each model and choosing (tentatively, of

course) the best, the IPCC had deviated from the scientific process,‖ Storrs wrote. He

136

concluded by noting that it was a ―mostly friendly discussion.‖ ―So not everything there

was ‗global warming indoctrination,‘‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Bill Korbel of News 12 in Long Island is a retired weather officer

for the U.S. Air Force and questioned the ―consensus‖ on global warming in 2008. Korbel

noted that there is "a lot of uncertainty" and that our climate system is "incredibly

complex" and possesses "incredible ways of adjusting to change,‖ according to an article in

Newsday. ―He also pointed out that we are ‗still in a learning situation,‘ and that ‗science

has been full of some wrong predictions in the past,‘‖ the article explained. (LINK)

(LINK)

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam‟s Royal

Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression” algorithm is embedded in

every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today, dissented from exclusive

man-made global warming and runaway greenhouse fears and predicted a coming

global cooling in 2008-09. Wysmuller said this during his two-hour presentation of

current scientific research titled "The Colder Side of Global Warming©‖ on December 6,

2008. Wysmuller believes that carbon dioxide levels of today are distinct from temperature

increases. ―Carbon dioxide is increasing but is not even close to dragging temperatures up

proportionately," Wysmuller said. ―The warming trend that actually started 18,000 years

ago continues unabated, and Carbon Management while addressing other problems, will

have virtually ZERO impact on planetary warming. If tomorrow morning we stopped

every car and truck, shut down every factory and power plant around the globe, we still

wouldn't stop the remaining multi-year Arctic ice cap from melting within the next 15 or so

years,‖ he explained. ―The largest contributor to the steady carbon dioxide increase in the

atmosphere is its release from the warming oceans,‖ he continued. The December 11, 2008

article explained his argument that the current spike in temperature is approaching levels

that existed just prior to the most recent ice age. ―What that means,‖ he said, ―is that we are

nearing a period when temperatures will actually start to decrease and weather patterns

dramatically change.‖ Tom‘s research shows that increasing the area of open water in the

Arctic will generate an abundance of "ocean effect" snow, similar to the lake effect snow

that hits the upstate New York area. "The shores of the Arctic will accumulate massive

amounts of ocean effect snow," Wysmuller said. "The accumulated snow falls earlier and

melts later, increasing the Earth‘s ―Albedo‖ or reflected light during daylight hours, so

temperatures, and the planet as a whole, will cool." Over 100 stunning slides and

videoclips vividly portrayed the underlying science of climate change he described. (LINK)

(LINK) (LINK)

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at

MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked

warming and cooling cycles to the ―orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth's

spin.‖ Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, ―Clearly,

these are not ‗facts.‘ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to

the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,‖ Rose wrote. ―Cooler

heads [are] needed in global warming debate,‖ Rose wrote. ―Global warming is occurring

as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling

cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very

hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making

to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can't be tested

137

experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments)

and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as

handicapping horse races. (LINK)

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy

Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream

Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers,

attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New

York City in March 2008. ―The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming

period is not unprecedented,‖ Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008.

―The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer

and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,‖ Loehle explained.

―The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,‖ he added.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK) Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy &

Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be "0.3C warmer than the 20th

century." The study was titled ―A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on

non-treering proxies." (LINK) & (LINK)

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended

the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in

March. ―Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.

The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for

political action on global warming,‖ Weber said during the conference. (LINK) Weber also

endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International

Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part, ―There is no

convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is

now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.‖

[Updated: December 16, 2008]

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the

University of Arizona - Tucson, past member of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and

authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008. ―My

principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows: 1) I am

mistrustful of ‗all but the kitchen sink‘ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be

analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results

is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a

model that is similarly opaque,‖ Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008. ―2) I am

troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ‗mother of

all nonlinear dynamical systems‘ - i.e., the climate. 3) I believe it likely that "natural

climate cycles" are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in

the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are

"dense" on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic

trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of

qualitatively different behaviors - what climatologists call "regime shift" - independent of

extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network

theory and ‗synchronized chaos,‘ but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic

138

is to dance the dance of the saddles,‖ Schaffer explained. ―The recent lack of warming in

the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas

forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been

underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in

previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,‖ he added. ―I fear that things

could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the

consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said

consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This

possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global

engineering ‗solutions‘ as madness. ‗First do no harm‘ should be the watchword of those

who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,‖ he

continued. ―I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‗consensus‘

view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science. If I am

correct, the truth of the matter will inevitably become widely known and the consequences

to science, severe. Think Lysenko and the demise of Soviet genetics,‖ he concluded.

(LINK) (LINK)(LINK)

Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power

program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American

Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from

climate fears in 2008. ―Gore‘s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based,‖ August

wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled ―An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating

Deception.‖ ―The book denies the legitimacy of science for review. The irony is, of course,

the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based

on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method -- nor

can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,‖ August explained. ―Gore

argues we‘re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with

the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting

consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific

method. Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this

must be morally corrupt?‖ August added. ―Fighting religion with reason, we scientists

sadly can‘t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC. So, isn't it ironic?

The only truth that's inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore‘s successfully sold his message as

if it were science!‖ he added. (LINK)

Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120

scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. ―There is currently no

satisfactory answer to the central question: ‗What is the actual proof that humans are

causing catastrophic global warming?‘ All of the climate computer models in the world do

not provide the proof,‖ Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008. ―It boils down to a

matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global

temperature provides the proof. But correlations are not proof of cause-and-

effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation

designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the

available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures

in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,‖

Pettibone explained. (LINK)

139

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at

Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of

Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a

fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the

Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from

warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008. ―I

had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I

did not need the job that badly,‖ Happer told EPW on December 16, 2008. Happer, who

was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Award, the Broida Prize and the 1999

Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, says he was fired by Gore in

1993 for not going along with Gore‘s environmental agenda. ―I was told that science was

not going to intrude on policy," Happer said in 1993. In 2008, Happer publicly dissented

from man-made warming fears. ―I have spent a long research career studying physics that

is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible

and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the

current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,‖ Happer explained. ―Mistakes are common

in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is

important that misguided political decisions do not block science's capacity for self

correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our

liberties and wellbeing,‖ Happer added. ―Fears about man-made global warming are

unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it

always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those

of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800's, at the end of

the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide

in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows

how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the

past ten years,‖ he continued. ―Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere,

and calling it a ‗pollutant‘ is inaccurate. Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent

carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon

dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per

million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million

years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the

levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels,

about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of

carbon dioxide,‖ he added. ―Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from

increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the

direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to

2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive

feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is

responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the

feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor

and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,‖ he

concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) [Updated: December 22, 2008]

Award-winning Retired Senior NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the

former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA‟s vocal man-made global warming fears

promoter, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen

140

“embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was

never muzzled.” Theon was the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research

Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics &

Radiation Branch. Theon also co-authored the book Advances in Remote Sensing

Retrieval Methods. Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological

Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an

Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and

awarded the AIAA's Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing. He

was also awarded the Radio Wave Award by the Minister of Posts and

Telecommunications of Japan for contributions to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring

Mission -- a joint NASA-Japanese Space Agency satellite. Theon has authored or

coauthored more than 50 NASA Reports, journal articles, monographs, chapters in

books, and edited two books in the scientific literature. “I appreciate the opportunity

to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,‖ Theon wrote

to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15,

2009. ―I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate

his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual

performance evaluation,‖ Theon explained. [Note: Here are the results of a Google

Scholar search on Theon.] ―Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's

official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast

climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming

out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,‖ Theon

wrote. Theon declared ―climate models are useless.‖ ―My own belief concerning

anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate

system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models

either replicate poorly or completely omit,‖ Theon explained. ―Furthermore, some

scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so,

they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they

did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated

independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.

Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine

public policy,‖ he added. ―As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters‘ programs (1982-

94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire

agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson,

and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the

private sector who worked on climate research,‖ Theon wrote of his career. ―This

required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate

science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,‖ Theon added. (LINK)

(LINK) [Update: NASA warming scientist 'suffering from a bad case of megalomania'

-- former supervisor Theon says

- March 11, 2009 – Business & Media Institute &

NASA Warming Scientist Under Fire -- From Former Supervisor...'Jim Hansen

should be fired' - March 11, 2009 – Business & Media Institute ]

Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan

Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, publicly dissented in 2009.

Kusano‟s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of

the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” Kusano, who was awarded the

Nishinomiya Yukawa Memorial Prize and the Inoue Research Award for Young

141

Scientists, compared climate models to “ancient astrology.” According to a February

25, 2009, article in the UK Register, ―Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares

[climate models] to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own

conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes: ‗[The

IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a

continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis.‘‖ "I

believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the

hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend

Australian on March 14, 2009. ―It could take 10 to 20 years‘ more research to prove or

disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change,‖ said Dr Kusano, a research group

leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.

According to a January 2009 article in Daily Tech, Kusano ―believes that cosmic rays,

which are modulated by cycles in the strength of the sun's magnetic fields, may potentially

have large-scale impacts on the earth's climate.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

(LINK)

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan,

recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, is a former Division Chief of

NASA‟s Marshall Space Flight Center and authored more than 100 refereed journal

articles, monographs, and papers, and currently is a research professor at the

University of Alabama in Huntsville. Vaughan, who is a member of the American

Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union

(AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), declared his dissent from

man-made climate fears in 2009. ―The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due

to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made

activities,‖ Vaughan told Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

"I believe that natural causes and associated global environment trends may well have

beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife and governmental actions to significantly

modify them will be ineffective if implemented and a waste of resources,‖ Vaughan

explained. ―I accept that there are local and, perhaps, regional man-made effects on the

environment like ‗heat islands‘ and ‗pollutants that accumulate in a valley,‘ for example,

where effective efforts can be made to modify detrimental local environmental effects.

However, these man-made local effects are on a scale significantly smaller than what is

occurring under the envelope of global climate effects caused by nature,‖ Vaughan

explained. ―Also, I believe any governmental efforts to control global warming caused by

nature will be essentially ineffective. Adapting to changes in the climate caused by natural

effects will be far more productive. Something life on the Earth has been doing for

thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands of more years I suspect. The

civilizations and associated productivity we have today is the product of the natural climate

changes that have occurred on the Earth in the past,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Chemist Max S. Strozier, who spent 26 years specializing in chemical laboratory

analysis, served as a U.S. Department of Defense aerospace chemist and is a former

lecturer at San Jose State University and the University of Texas. Strozier, who holds

a masters degree, co-authored journal publications, and is past treasurer and member

of the American Chemical Society, dissented in 2009. “If global warming or climate

change were real, substantiated science, why didn't Al Gore win one of the Nobel science

prizes? If this was real science, the prize would have been won in the Physics category,

Atmospheric Physics to be specific. It would not have been a Nobel Peace Prize, the

142

awarding of which is highly subjective and political,‖ Strozier wrote on December 22,

2008, to the minority staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee. ―Scientists

across the globe are catching on -- global warming is not real science. There is a sucker

born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of P.T. Barnum. The

taxpayers and the voters are the ones being played as the suckers,‖ Strozier wrote. (LINK)

Engineer Alan Cheetham has 30 years‟ experience including extensive scientific

training, data analysis, modeling and statistics and runs the skeptical website “Global

Warming Science.” ―My knowledge and training enables me to scientifically evaluate the

data and the scientific studies. When I began to look into the science behind the global

warming issue, I started to realize that the scientific debate is not over (the political debate

may be over, but it shouldn't be) -- because the science doesn't match the fearful scenarios

portrayed by the media,‖ Cheetham explains on his website in 2009. ―Unfortunately, the

media do not provide a balanced portrayal of the issue -- the media are in the business of

selling fear, and if global warming is not the end of the world, there is no story,‖ Cheetham

wrote. ―The IPCC was set up in 1988 with the stated purpose of assessing ‗the scientific,

technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of

human-induced climate change‘ -- i.e. the human cause was built-in before the science was

investigated. According to the IPCC, the climate change until 1970 can be explained by the

theoretical computer climate models based on natural climate forcings; after 1970 the

models can only explain the warming based on anthropogenic CO2. But there are two

problems: 1: the data - adjustments and urban heat influence; 2: the models. This web site

documents the science providing ample evidence that supports the rejection of the CO2

hypothesis,‖ Cheetham explained. ―The IPCC was set up as a political process. The

political purpose of the IPCC can be summed up as the former Canadian Environment

Minister Christine Stewart put it in referring to the IPCC: ‗No matter if the science is all

phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest

chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.‘ [Calgary Herald, December 14,

1998]. However, I am in the minority that thinks science is relevant and that the political

process should not subvert science in this manner,‖ he continued. (LINK) (LINK)

Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson is a former Department of

Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers and

specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and

surface chemistry. Anderson, who currently serves as president and principal scientist

at Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc., dissented in 2009. ―My evaluation is that man's

effect upon the global climate is still small compared to the natural forces at work and that

they are incapable of causing anything on the scale of a catastrophe. But, man can cause a

catastrophe to his lifestyle and to his lifespan,‖ Anderson wrote on March 14, 2009. ―Any

warming that is caused by man is probably the cause of more good than bad. The higher

CO2 concentrations in the air are certainly good for plant growth, which is good for both

man and other animals,‖ Anderson wrote. ―I am a materials physicist by training, who has

long functioned as a materials scientist with broad interests across many scientific and

technological fields,‖ he explained. ―Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous

name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and

they know it. Of course, just because a man has written many peer-reviewed papers and is

in a science department at a university does not mean that he is doing good science,‖

Anderson wrote. ―I was also concerned that so much of the justification for man's role was

143

based on complex computer models, which nonetheless did not take into account many

major natural effects and which had a well-established history of being modified to produce

ever-decreasing rates of temperature increases. The more I studied the issue, the more

problems I found with the claims that man had suddenly become so powerful that he was

dominating the natural climate forces,‖ Anderson wrote. ―Most of the scientists working on

global climate issues were either working for universities or for government agencies, and

these institutions have become so highly politicized, predominantly toward the left, that it

is common to find scientific reasoning weaknesses whenever there is a political

consequence to the scientific outcome,‖ he added. ―I have developed computer models

myself for the study of materials properties. When developing and using models is very

important to keep a clear physical picture of the aspect of reality you are modeling. It is

easy to mess up your boundary conditions, which is a known problem with many of the

climate models; it is easy to fall into divergent conditions such as the claims of catastrophic

positive warming feedback are likely to be; and it is easy to overlook some factors of

importance in a complex problem, which the global climate most certainly is,‖ he added.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who worked on

the Nobel Award-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‟s (IPCC)

Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, also was part of the scientific

team who drafted a UN special report on the Ozone Layer in 2005. Japar, who has

authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric

chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, is a research associate editor for a

publication of the American Chemical Society and on the screening committee of the

California Air Resources Board. Japar, a former chemistry lecturer at the University

of Michigan, publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in 2009. ―My skepticism

about anthropogenic global warming is based entirely on the Scientific Method. We know

that the planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago,

but it is only for the last 40-50 years that one could reasonably hypothesize a significant

human impact on what has been termed ‗global warming,‘‖ Japar told the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009. ―First let me say that I

agree that there can be a human impact on warming on a local scale -- note the urban heat

island effect. However, such local impacts do not contribute to a large-scale, man-made

global warming,‖ Japar explained. ―The man-made global warming hypothesis is based on

only a few observations: (1) Surface temperatures have increased (~0.5 deg. C) for 40

years; and, (2) global climate models project a significant additional increase over the next

100 or more years. Essentially all additional arguments are based on these two points and,

therefore, add little to the basic arguments,‖ Japar continued. ―The basis of the Scientific

Method is that hypotheses be subject to challenge, and if the challenge cannot be disproved

the hypothesis fails. The first part of the global warming hypothesis is that the recent global

temperature increase is real and mostly man-made. Is the magnitude of the temperature

increase certain? There are questions that must be answered. Among them are: Are the

current measurements accurate? Much recent information suggests that they are not --

unverified adjustments to 70 years of ‗raw‘ US and global temperature data; the

‗retirement‘ of more than 50% of the global temperature measurement sites in the last 25

years. Are there other possibilities to explain the (unverified) temperature increase of the

last 40 years? Yes! Current warming is consistent with the 300 year trend,‖ Japar added.

―Changes in solar activity could explain much of it (not solid yet). Then there is the climate

144

model-predicted mid-troposphere ‗hot‘ zone that is supposed to exist over the tropics.

Temperature measurements show that the hot zone is non-existent. This is more than

sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!‖ he

concluded.

Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the

Tokyo Institute of Technology‟s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has

authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of

Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes

in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change and declared his skepticism of

man-made climate fears in 2009. "Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy

carbon discharge rights," Maruyama said in a March 14, 2009, article in the Australian.

"This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global cooling will come soon -- scientists will

lose trust,‖ Maruyama explained. The article continued, ―Dr Maruyama said yesterday

there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the UN IPCC's fourth and

latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the

mid-20th century ‗is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse

gas concentrations.‘ When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union

symposium last year, he said, „the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not

believe the IPCC report.‟” The article noted Dr. Maruyama ―thinks the large influences

on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity‖ and ―believes the

earth has moved into a cooling period, and while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of

dollars on carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country's greatest looming

problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.‖ ―Dr. Maruyama said he was uncomfortable,

given the scientific uncertainty of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a

leading position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets. Dr. Maruyama said

many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to

risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he

said was leading society in the wrong direction,‖ the article concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

(LINK)

Biologist and Biochemist Dr. John Reinhard, a member of the American Chemical

Society who has published 76 papers and is currently a scientist in the pharmaceutical

industry, dissented from man-made warming fears in 2009. ―First, global warming is a

theory. Nothing more. It lacks objective data that would normally be needed to advance a

theory,‖ Reinhard wrote to the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 5,

2009. ―Moreover, the existing data show no correlation between mean temperatures and

carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, the data suggest that we are dealing with climate cycles

that cannot be predicted accurately with any of the existing models,‖ Reinhard explained.

―Adoption of carbon ‗cap & trade‘ schemes will have a very clear and negative effect on

the economies of developed nations. We can't afford to let junk science tank our economy.

Please feel free to add me to your [dissenting scientist] list,‖ Reinhard concluded.

Environmental Scientist and Physicist Louis H. Fowler, who worked with the Texas

Air Control Board (now Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) studying

ozone issues and specialized in the development and application of models for

evaluating impacts of hazardous chemical releases and pollution dispersion modeling

145

using various EPA models, declared his climate skepticism. ―I have a masters in physics

and over 33 years‘ working in the fields of environmental science, monitoring air quality

and overseeing modeling analyses from permit models to hazardous release impact

models. Were I to submit such fraudulent types of reports to my clients or to the federal or

state regulatory agencies I would be kicked out of my company. Too bad folks like

[NASA‘s] James Hansen can continue lying at taxpayers' expense in efforts that will line

his and Al Gore‘s pockets. Follow the money!‖ Fowler told the Environment and Public

Works Committee on December 10, 2009. ―I am one of the 32,000+ signers of [skeptical

declaration] the Oregon Petition. Please keep fighting this zealous, destructive, anti-

capitalist garbage. There are more than 650 skeptics...some just won't speak out for fear of

retribution,‖ Fowler explained. (LINK)

Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has

authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and

authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which

included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of

space-based research and was honored by the U.S. Department of Commerce for its

International Scientist Recognition. Moore also received a special recommendation of

the U.S. Senate for his work related to protection of the environment. Moore,

formerly a university professor, scientist of the U.S. Government lab, managing editor

of an international scientific journal, member of the New York Academy of Sciences,

and senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, rejected the notion that there is a consensus on man-made climate claims in 2009. ―There

is definitely no sufficient data which would create a basis for making any kind of

conclusions either way,‖ Moore wrote to the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee on January 10, 2009. ―There is no sufficient data in existence anywhere which

would allow for making any kind of definite statements on the effect of natural

mechanisms on the global warming phenomenon,‖ Moore explained. ―The data which is

used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough

and primitive, compared to what‘s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth

mentioning by respectful scientists,‖ Moore added.

Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, formerly of the

USAF‟s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command (SAC) Headquarters

where he served at “the leading edge of designing and implementing computer

techniques for global weather modeling in support of SAC operations.” Lyons publicly

declared his skepticism in 2009. ―I decry the creation of the fear mentality which many

seem to use to prevent rational study and encourage irrational actions. I am pleased to be

considered a ‗denier‘ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied

prevailing ‗scientific consensus‘ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the

center of the universe,‖ Lyons told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Minority office on March 5, 2009. ―My experience, and that of those around me, taught me

to be cautious of any predictive model which could not be verified. Other activities ongoing

at the time made it clear to me how monumental is the energy in our climate system, and

taught me to be cautious of the value of human efforts to control the weather,‖ Lyons

explained. ―Global warming and cooling are realities that have occurred in cycles which

began when our atmosphere was formed. The forces involved in weather systems are

difficult to comprehend, and the sources of the factors which influence warming/cooling

146

cycles remain subject to legitimate scientific debate. I suspect influence from the varying

radiation of the sun as the major factor. I rely on the scientific evidence that the variation in

warming/cooling can be statistically correlated with changes in CO2 levels, but the

correlation is not predictive of CO2 causality in that the change in CO2 typically lags the

change in temperature by several hundred years. My personal experience in building

statistical forecasting models taught me that correlation is not always a predictive

relationship,‖ Lyons concluded.

Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum who

specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers,

rejected man-made climate fears in 2009. ―Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global

warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures,

drought or torrential rain, tornadoes and hurricanes or changes in the habits of migratory

birds. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight

explanation,‖ Cuadros wrote on March 3, 2009. ―For a scientist like me, this sounds fishy. I

imagine that there are a good number of models, each with different assumptions and

results, but we are never given a general view of these models, what data they use, how

their results compare and where and when their predictions apply. The impression is that

science popularisers cherry-pick whichever happens to provide the results that match the

news of the day. One very useful tool in this respect has been the conceptual change from

global warming to the more adaptable one of climate change,‖ Cuadros wrote. ―Global

warming has become a powerful political tool,‖ Cuadros explained. ―I do not find the

supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues. My field is earth sciences, related to

certain aspects of climate change in the geological scale. Approximately 70 per cent of

fellow researchers with whom I have discussed the matter think that we do not have

sufficient information to be sure about the issue and that the pretended consensus is

politically manufactured. The other 30 per cent do believe there is sufficient evidence in

favor of the man-made global warming interpretation. My conversations have sampled

scientists from Scotland to Gibraltar and from San Francisco to Moscow,‖ he continued.

―[Former Vice President Al] Gore simply made a film and toured the world for a short time

while cashing in heavily on a popular theory. This shows that the environmental lobby has

become so successful and powerful that they are fearless and ready to take their battle to

the most unconvincing extremes. This panorama is a distressing one for science. The case

for man-made global warming has been made waving the banner of science,‖ he concluded.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who heads “The

Robert H. Austin Research Group in Biophysics” and has published 170 scientific

papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is a

fellow Fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the

Advancement of Science and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the

International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar

Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society, rejected man-made climate claims in

2009. ―I was taught that any discipline with the word ‗science‘ as part of its title is to be

avoided, such as Political Science. Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political

Science,‖ Austin told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2,

2009. ―We understand very little still about climate changes on Earth, which have been

over the eons dramatic and sometimes rapid, and mankind had nothing to do with these

changes. If you cannot predict the past, you cannot predict the future. It is tragic that some

147

perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have

whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,

and I deeply regret that scientific societies such as the National Academy of Sciences and

the American Physical Society have not played leadership roles in giving voice to questions

about the depth of our knowledge of climate change and man's ability to change climate,‖

Austin explained. ―Of course I am an environmentalist and I would like to see us develop

alternate energy sources and conserve energy thoughtfully. I believe that biotechnology

will lead the way towards a true greener future which is less polluting and more

sustainable,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Environmental Engineer James A. Haigh, PE, a Certified Plant Engineer and

Licensed Professional Engineer of 36 years who has assisted in the design of Class III

nuclear valves for nuclear power plants, designed Energy Conservation Process such

as cogeneration, pressurized condensate return and authored numerous

environmental engineering and pollution studies. Haigh, a life long environmentalist,

dissented from climate fears in 2009. Haigh presented a paper January 26, 2009, on how

the current ―Media Induced State of Fear from alleged Human Induced Global Warming‖

adversely affects Environmental Compliance and can result in ―disastrous and ineffective

long term energy planning.‖ Haigh told Environment and Public Works Committee on

February 4, 2009, that based on his research of available data he had ―reached the

conclusion that man-made climate fears were ‗obviously incorrect‘ records of the surface

of the sun heating up correlate with the rise in the earth's temperature far more consistently

than the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact there are 30 year periods where CO2 rises

almost linearly while global surface temperatures fell considerably (1940-1970)‖ Haigh

wrote. ―CO2 control is appears to be an effective way to limit the global competitiveness of

the US and method to reduce our standard of living at the expense of (countries like)

communist china that have little or no environmental compliance law in comparison to the

US,‖ he continued. ―My greatest concern is that national policy decisions should not be

made in a media-induced ‗State of Fear.‘ Concentrating on CO2 as the sole source of

immediate and dire global climate change diverts the focus from the true concern,

environmental compliance. The public has been mislead into thinking that ―being green‖ is

synonymous with saving the environment when in fact ‗green alternative fuels‘ such as

corn ethanol (which doesn‘t reduce fossil fuel demand) actually makes significant

contributions to already dangerous ground water pollution and surface run off that has

created a 200 mile dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River where nothing lives,‖

Haigh wrote. ―That is only one example of how making decisions in a Media Induced State

of Fear have immediate and dire effect on the environment. Licensed professional

engineers such as me practicing in the environmental field tend to view such things as

Human Induced Global Warming theory on how it actually and immediately affects our

global competitiveness and distracts us from making sound long term, environmentally

sound energy policy,‖ Haigh wrote.

Meteorologist Tony Pann of WUSA 9 in Washington, DC, holds the American

Meteorological Seal of Approval and dissented from man-made climate fears. ―I am on

the ‗other side of the fence‘ when it comes to global warming...and I'm not alone by any

means,‖ Pann wrote on July 22, 2008, in the Washington Post. ―I am all for the

environmental movement...there are a million reasons to clean up the air and find

alternative fuels. This whole thing has really moved away from science anyhow and taken

148

on a moral or religious overtone,‖ Pann explained. ―The argument for me now is this: Can

we get people to act on the environment without scaring the ‗you know what‘ out of them?

I hope so.‖ Pann also explained, ―I believe the earth naturally goes through warming and

cooling cycles. It could very well be that it's colder in five years. We just don't know.

Anyone remember the Time magazine cover stories back in the 1970s about us going into a

‗mini ice age?‘‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Certified Consulting Meteorologist Mike Smith, the CEO of WeatherData Services of

Wichita Kansas, dissented in 2009. ―My personal conclusion: The science is definitely not

settled,‖ Smith wrote in a January 16, 2009, article titled ―Global Warming Doom, Gloom

Haven‘t Occurred.‖ ―I don't know what 2009's or 2029's weather might bring, nor does

anyone else. The sciences of meteorology and climatology still have a lot of learning to

do,‖ Smith explained. ―The fact is that the solar-land-ocean-atmosphere system is

incredibly complex, and meteorologists have no consistent skill at forecasting its behavior a

year into the future, let alone decades hence,‖ he added. ―The 2001 forecasts by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (cited by Al Gore) have failed to capture the

recent cooling, as the above graph indicates, suggesting that the carbon dioxide-atmosphere

connection is more complex than some initially believed. A small but growing number of

scientists are becoming concerned about global cooling due to the current, unusually low

solar activity and other geophysical factors,‖ Smith added. (LINK)

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G. d'Annunzio in Italy is the

past president of the Society of Italian Geologists and dissented in 2009. ―I am very glad

to sign the U.S. Senate‘s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global

warming,‖ Crescenti wrote to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on

January 15, 2009. ―I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to

geological data (my Conference, XCI Congress of Society of Italiana di Fisica, Catania

2005). I am very glad to sign the [Senate‘s] AGW-650 report,‖ Crescenti added. (LINK)

Physicist Jerome Hudson who studies focused on aperture synthesis and optics,

dissented from man-made climate fears in 2009. ―I am not convinced that CO2 is any threat

to the environment, nor am I convinced of any catastrophic warming. You can classify me

as a ‗skeptic,‘‖ Hudson wrote to Environment and Public Works Committee on January 10,

2009. ―I don't believe our government should spend vast sums of money in a fruitless

attempt to counter a non-problem. I don't oppose further research on the topic - there is

certainly enough of a case for that, so long as the funding is fairly distributed to scientists

on both sides of the issue,‖ Hudson added.

Professor Luigi Mariani, PhD, of the Agro-Meteorological Research Group, Dept. of

Crop Science at the University of Milan, who has authored or co-authored more than

50 peer-reviewed studies and other scientific reports, refuted man-made fears and

ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore's climate claims in 2009. "The sheer number of

contradictions in Gore‘s charts vs. words makes that all too evident. The graph showing

CO2 concentrations over the last 650,000 years alongside temperatures clearly indicates

increased CO2 is an effect of warming and not a cause," Dr. Mariani said on January 23,

2009, after a public screening of Al Gore‘s An Inconvenient Truth. "Temperatures in

Switzerland definitely increase but only from 1989: why would the greenhouse effect of

CO2 show up only from that date, one wonders? Is there something else perhaps,

underneath Gore‘s neat explanations? I am really impressed by Gore‘s light-mindedness in

149

navigating among contradictory data. If he delivered the same ideas around the world in

hundreds of speeches, how on Earth can it be possible that not even one person in the

attendance has ever made Gore confront his own contradictions? Had he spent at least part

of his precious time reading scientific literature or at least opening himself to a frank and

open discussion with anybody aware of the complexities of climate science, I am sure he

would have presented things in a different way," Mariani explained. "Also note how many

times Gore pushes on the ethics button, whilst anybody with a different mind on these topic

is basically of lowly morals (a 'skeptic,' a well-paid mouthpiece for Big Oil, etc)," he

added. "Gore at one point says that we must get rid of 'evil' greenhouse gases. Everybody

must be made aware of the fact that CO2 is not a poison, rather a major foundation for life

itself. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis and we would not have much if

anything to eat. Vascular plants appeared during the Devonian era, with CO2 levels 20 to

30 times higher than current ones, and yet temperatures were not much different than

today‘s (Hetherington et al. 2005). And if there was no man at the time to call as a 'cancer'

on the planet, could anybody please explain on what grounds Devonian air was the way it

was?" Mariani asked. "Gore argues that to allow CO2 to increase is deeply immoral. It

would be interesting to ask for an opinion on such a claim by a plant of wheat or a vine," he

added. Gore's film "offers no science-based evaluation of what issues are really at stake: it

is in fact its exact opposite, more likely part of a neo-Apocalyptic mindset that distorts the

scale of importance of our issues and is capable of contributing little or nothing to the

solution of actual problems currently facing humanity. Granting the 2007 Nobel Peace

Prize together to a politician (Al Gore) and a supposedly scientific organization (the IPCC)

has simply reinforced the idea that the IPCC itself and AGW in general are heavily

constrained by politics," he concluded. (LINK) (LINK) LINK)

Environmental Chemist Jim Nibeck, who also worked in the biomedical research

industry, wrote a 2008 paper on climate titled “Doubt About Anthropogenic Global

Warming.” ―My personal skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming is based on

the premise that man-made CO2 is a significant portion of environmental CO2 and that

man-made CO2 is the prime cause of global warming,‖ Nibeck wrote in an analysis

emailed to EPW on December 13, 2008. ―Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant

greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse gases. Interestingly, many

―facts and figures‖ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of

water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human

impacts as much as 20-fold,‖ Nibeck wrote.

Quantitative economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious

Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington

(founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques.

Haapala declared his dissent in 2009. Haapala presented the finding of a report he co-

authored titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” at a January 9, 2009,

meeting of the Philosophical Society of Washington. Haapala ―directly challenged the

conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing

dangerous and unprecedented warming. In brief, the report finds the recent warming is

neither unusual nor unprecedented and most likely predominately caused by natural forces.

The report asserts that the quantitative models used by the IPCC to make predictions are

unreliable and biased in greatly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide emissions

on warming. The report demonstrates that the IPCC report obscures how little we know of

150

the natural forces that cause climate change,‖ the website of the Philosophical Society of

Washington explained. ―Starting with a brief overview of our knowledge of climate

change, Haapala will highlight key failures in the IPCC report. Particularly, the speaker

will critique the IPCC's use of quantitative procedures and techniques of presentation. The

talk will conclude with alternative theories, suggestions of what went wrong, and what

needs to be studied,‖ the website concluded. (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Seymour Merrin, a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a

research scientist, declared ―climate change is nature at work‖ in 2009. ―The basic theory

states that, as human-produced CO2 increases, Earth temperatures increase. Simple

prediction, simple to test. The predominance of ‗hottest‘ years should be in the last 20

years, but that is not true. In fact, the last 10 years have been relatively flat — with 2007

and 2008 having declining temperatures. No correlation at all — actually, a disproval of

that particular theory,‖ Merrin wrote on February 29, 2009. ―There are simple facts in such

abundance that the media never reports. When the media lambastes a great (skeptical)

scientist and brave patriot, Jack Schmitt, a geologist, astronaut and former senator for

apostasy, you know that it isn't science they're talking about, but agendas. Schmitt knows

more about the Earth and its environment than all the staff at The New Mexican put

together. Listen to a proven scientist,‖ Merrin wrote. ―There is little doubt that the Earth's

climate is changing, as it always has. A multitude of specific evidence leaves no doubt that

10,000 years ago, glaciers covered a large part of the polar regions down to the latitude of

New York City in the north. Concrete evidence shows that since then, the temperature has

been significantly warmer (sub-tropical plants in Alaska) and colder during the Little Ice

Age from the 15th century through the middle of the 19th. It was warmer in the 14th

century than it is now,‖ he added. (LINK)

Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. who has co-authored analyses of geological

and seismological hazards, rejected climate fears in 2009. ―It is amazing to me, as a

professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say,

‗drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid‘ concerning global climate change,‖ Titcomb wrote on March

13, 2009. ―One of the more recent changes (geologically speaking) was the Pleistocene age

glacial and interglacial period. This era was one of repeated climate changes causing rises

and falls of the sea level, as glaciers advanced and retreated. Our Coastal Plain in Georgia

was formed as the result of these movements,‖ Titcomb wrote. ―This occurred over

thousands of years before the present and there were no human beings around at the time to

blame for these changes: i.e., there were no coal-fired plants nor gas guzzling cars to

blame, etc. It makes one wonder how all these climate changes occurred with no one or no

fossil fuel power plants, etc., to blame! Could it possibly be that our planet is now and has

always been in a natural constant state of change?‖ Titcomb wrote. ―Why must we now

take ‗bold action,‘ including burdensome and costly regulations, to stop these questionable

impacts of human activity?‖ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Surface Chemist Dr. Mark Rose, Head of Environmental Quality at Qatar Petroleum

who has generated two patents and developed the largest Purified Wet Acid Plant in

the world, dissented in 2009. ―This human-centered view of changes in the earth‘s

environment, said Dr Rose, is challenged by many scientists, who argue that climate is, and

always will be, controlled by the sun. Man‘s puny efforts at changing the climate is a mere

sideshow compared with the unimaginably vast changes in the sun‘s solar output. Water

vapour, not carbon dioxide, is the major driving force in climate change,‖ an article in the

151

Gulf Times reported on January 9, 2009. The article continued, ―Almost any natural

disaster nowadays is unhesitatingly blamed on global warming resulting from man‘s

indifference to his environment. Anyone who thinks otherwise, says Dr Rose, is urged to

keep quiet and he/she will meet with considerable reluctance on the part of reputable

scientific journals to publish alternative theories.‖ The article concluded, ―If it is true, does

it mean that we can all stop worrying about polluting the earth‘s atmosphere? Of course

not, said Dr Rose, pollution is increasingly harmful to the health of all living creatures, not

just humans. But blaming it for global warming is another matter altogether.‖ (LINK)

(LINK)

Physicist Dr. Paul Drallos, who worked as a Post Doc at Sandia National Labs in

Albuquerque and at the University of Toledo, formed Plasma Dynamics Corporation,

a small research company that specializes in plasma display technology and computer

simulation. Drallos also publicly declared his skepticism of man-made warming fears.

―We must conclude that there is no logical basis on which to believe that theory of human-

caused global warming,‖ Drallos wrote in a July 9, 2008, paper titled ―Is global warming

caused by human activity?‖ ―There is good correlation between temperature and solar

variations. There is historical evidence of natural climate cycles. There is historical

evidence that changes in temperature cause changes in atmospheric CO2. There is scientific

basis for each of these observations,‖ Drallos wrote. ―On the other hand, we have the

anthropogenic greenhouse gas explanation. The physical evidence for greenhouse gas

warming is absent. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is absent. The historical

evidence is not consistent with CO2 acting as a driver of temperature. Temperature trends

during the most recent decade have displayed the exact opposite behavior than predicted by

the greenhouse theory. In light of these observations, by what logic can we justify choosing

a new theory which has no supporting physical evidence, no positive correlation with

observations, inconsistency with historical evidence and currently predicts the opposite of

what we now observe?‖ Drallos wrote. ―Furthermore, by what logic do we choose such a

theory over an established theory that has physical evidence and positive correlation with

observations, is consistent with the historical record and currently predicts what we now

observe? (We are currently witnessing a decrease in solar activity and a corresponding

decrease in global temperature, as expected.)‖ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality

consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA

Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air

quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological

Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous

technical publications and reports, joined the international scientists dissenting from

man-made warming claims in 2008. ―Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming)

analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly

contradict much more reliable satellite data,‖ Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008.

According to satellite data, ―the Earth has been cooling since 1998,‖ Scotto wrote. ―This

discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface

records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban

stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting

criteria,‖ Scotto explained. ―Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of

man‘s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the

152

natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment

of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for

increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,‖ he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in

the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry

and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a

wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund

contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality

consulting firm. Minnich holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at

Rutgers University and University of Michigan. He is a past member of the American

Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has

authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports. ―I choose to

take President-elect Obama at his word when, upon his appointment of John Holdren as

director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he promised to

‗[protect] free and open inquiry . . . ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or

obscured by politics or ideology,‘‖ Minnich told EPW on December 22, 2008. Clearly the

best means to fulfill on this commitment is to appoint to the Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology, over which Dr. Holdren will preside, several of the more than 650

distinguished and renowned scientists who have openly questioned the ―consensus‖ on

AGW in Senator Inhofe‘s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report,‖ Minnich explained. ―The

late Michael Crichton said it well: ‗Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first

refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already

settled. . . . Let‘s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus

[which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The

greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus,‘‖

Minnich added. (LINK) (LINK)

Certified consulting meteorologist Anthony J. Sadar, co-author of Environmental Risk

Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry, dissented from man-made climate

fears in 2009. ―Everyone has been conditioned to believe that an extremely complex

climate system is largely controlled by a single simple gas - carbon dioxide - even though

the biggest single climate regulator on Earth is most likely water,‖ Sadar wrote on February

23, 2009. ―The global atmospheric temperature is substantially controlled by water in all its

forms, as invisible vapor in air, as liquid in oceans and clouds, and as solid ice crystals,

snow cover, and glaciers,‖ Sadar explained. ―Many in the environmental profession have

come to an epiphany like the one the late Michael Crichton had - that contemporary

environmentalism, with its authoritative, unchallengeable proclamations and rigid tenets, is

analogous to organized religion. This environmental religion is headed by politicians (or

former politicians) as the high priests and an established political cathedral (read

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Besides, could other uncontrollable factors

like variation in incoming solar radiation and cosmic rays, as some atmospheric scientists

have proposed, have a dominant influence over climate? So, before we all surrender to a

calamitous climate change scenario, let's put it into perspective with the very real present-

day calamities of mass starvation, disease, ethnic cleansing, potential economic collapses,

and the like. With these exceptionally serious challenges at hand and based on the

enormous complexity of the Earth-climate system and the relative paucity of knowledge

scientists have about the systems operation, we sincerely hope to encourage a return to

153

humility in environmental research and activism and education about our biosphere. We

hope politicians and scientists once again embrace the basics of science including the idea

that all ‗theories‘ consist of assumptions and limitations - and this goes double for

‗forecasts‘!‖ Sadar added. ―How have we come to universally accept this new religion

based on dubious prophecy that condemns so many poor souls to a living hell and will

greatly limit the salvation offered by free economies? That's where the missionaries come

in. These missionaries, a k a ‗teachers‘ and ‗professors,‘ have gone out into the fields of the

education system to disseminate the depressing gospel that the Earth is forever in big

trouble. Thus, with sustained indoctrination from grade school through graduate school,

proselytes have been harvested. No wonder today's scientists, let alone society, so quickly

succumb to any doomed-Earth theory. Our scientific community has been primed to accept

that a forecast of calamity for our atmosphere is as good as a reality,‖ he concluded.

(LINK) (LINK)

Terry Jackson of the Institute of Physics in London, the founder of the Energy Group,

and a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years, dissented from global warming claims in 2009. ―There is ample scientific proof that CO2

pollution levels follow temperature rises and not the other way round,‖ Jackson, a member

of the Women‘s Engineering Society, wrote on February 12, 2009. ―The earth has been

much warmer in the past than it is today. CO2 concentrations have been much higher from

1885 to 1961 than they are today,‖ Jackson wrote. ―While CO2 may be the most important

greenhouse gas, it is water naturally present in the atmosphere which contributes 95% of

the greenhouse effect,‖ she explained. ―The earth has been cooling for the last 10 years yet

CO2 levels have still been increasing. How come, if man is supposed to be responsible for

climate change?‖ she added. (LINK) (LINK)

Chemical Process Control Engineer Dr. Pierre R Latour, who holds a PhD in

Chemical Engineering and has published more than 70 publications and managed

NASA‟s Apollo Docking Simulator development, wrote an analysis of climate change

in Hydrocarbon Processing Magazine in 2009. ―I can prove mathematically the system is

unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable,‖ Latour wrote on February 4, 2009.

―Climate alarmists promote the scientifically discredited UN IPCC for political reasons,

ignoring the valid contradictory science and offering no convincing technical argument

either to confirm the UN IPCC or to support their own extravagant, alarmist theories. Any

neutral and reliable scientist, by contrast, will try to explain, in as balanced a way as

possible, what conclusions can be drawn from the information available, taking into

account all the uncertainties and question marks they come with,‖ Latour wrote in February

2009 in Hydrocarbon Processing Magazine. ―It is unfortunate that climate alarmists so

frequently use specious arguments that skillfully exploit the public‘s lack of background

knowledge to support their unworthy cause,‖ Latour wrote. ―Water vapor and clouds are a

powerful link between weather and climate, but historic data for modeling is absent. Water

vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the inconvenient truth often neglected by AGW

alarmists,‖ he added. ―I accept the sea is acidifying in some places, harming coral reefs. I

never claimed otherwise. My research indicates carbonic acid may be involved, but the

coral reaction rate has increased because of the solar driven increase in water temperature

during 1978–1998, as well as the increased carbonic acid concentration due to higher CO2

partial pressure at the sea surface, little of which is caused by fossil fuel combustion

anyway,‖ he added. (LINK)

154

Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University who has

authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books, dissented from man-made

climate fears. ―It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all,

because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with

observations that the average person can check for himself,‖ Tipler wrote on December 22,

2008. ―As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed

to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has

been refuted by experience. Now the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a

cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens -

-- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science

like astrology,‖ Tipler continued. ―If a guy agrees with AGW (Anthropogenic Global

Warming), then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract.

There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I

am about AGW, but he'd never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his

professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure,‖ Tipler added. (LINK) (LINK)

(LINK) (LINK)

Professor Dr. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, an adjunct professor at the School of

International Service at American University and a long-time teacher of statistical

modeling, rejected the certainty of man-made warming claims in 2009. ―It is noteworthy

that all paleo-climatologists agree that at the high and low end of the recurring 100,000

year cycles in which global mean temperature moves as much as 20 degrees, it is

temperature that changes direction first, followed in a few hundred years by carbon dioxide

concentration. These cycles of temperature are perfectly correlated with the oscillation of

the earth's orbit around the sun from a circle to a 5 percent ellipse, although no convincing

mechanism has been identified for how the change in the orbit could significantly change

the solar power that gets to earth,‖ Rossiter wrote in an essay titled ―Global Warming Far

from Fact‖ on February 16, 2009. ―The lack of understanding of a powerful physical

mechanism that has generated a 20-degree rise in temperature over the past 20,000 years

makes it difficult to accept the IPCC's claim - on the third step - that the lack of other

identifiable mechanisms for the much more modest rise in temperature in the past 150

years means that the sole culprit is human production of heat-trapping gases. For me there

is not enough proof to justify what I fear will be the outcome of the post-Kyoto emissions

negotiations: the developed countries will stampede developing countries into reducing the

carbon output they need to keep economies growing and life expectancy increasing,‖

Rossiter added. ―The IPCC reports that for millions of years the concentration in the

atmosphere of the primary heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide, has moved in close

correlation with global mean temperature. It also estimates that since 1860 this

concentration has increased from 280 to 380 parts per million as global mean temperature

has risen by one degree. Fine so far. However, since we have only one earth to experiment

on, which is not much of a sample size for testing climate hypotheses, the IPCC must use

computer models to address the second and third steps - timing and alternative hypotheses.

Here things get sticky. The models cited by the IPCC are still primarily statistical curve -

fitting exercises rather than mathematical reenactments of the effects of the laws of physics

on the interaction of molecules in the hurly-burly of a global system,‖ Rossiter explained.

Rossiter also wrote a 2006 essay titled ―Convenient Fibs about an Underlying Truth: Al

155

Gore‘s Tortured Brief on Climate Change‘s Causes, Effects, and Solutions‖ (LINK)

(LINK) (LINK)

Meteorologist Scott Sumner of North Carolina dissented from climate fears in 2009.

―An increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) is not going to change the fact that EVERYTHING

in weather and climate is cyclical. Nature is always trying to balance ‗herself‘ with the

current trend having been for less cold and snow during winter seasons and hotter and drier

summers, but snow lovers do not fret,‖ Sumner wrote in the DC Weather Examiner on

February 15, 2009. ―We need to look to the stars, well actually just one star, the Sun, in

order to delve deeper into its possible correlation with global warming. The interest in the

sun is in its sunspots and their on-average 11 year cycle. According to detailed observations

that have dated back to the late 19th century by the Royal Greenwich Observatory, records

of sunspot activity have carefully been examined with regards to the size, position and

number of sunspots. The findings over time can be summed up simply this way, the

cyclical changes that the sun undergoes appear to correlate well with temperatures on

earth,‖ Sumner explained. ―The current cycle appears to be the longest in at least a century

and may project to quieter subsequent cycle and cooling temperatures ahead. Just

something to think about when you hear talk about how our winters are barren of snow and

cold and how hotter our summers have been,‖ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Physicist Gary M. Hoover, a consultant with research and operational experience in

atmospheric energy absorption, nuclear reactor operations and exploration

geophysics, dissented in 2009. ―Temperature proxy measurements going back hundreds of

thousands of years through many ice ages and warm periods indicate atmospheric carbon

dioxide concentration to be a result of temperature change and not a cause,‖ Hoover wrote

on wrote on February 13, 2009, in Tulsa World. ―Alarmist climate predictions receive

enthusiastic coverage from the media and Hollywood since the sensationalism catches the

eye of viewers. Thousands of researchers depend upon the government's belief in warming

to continue nearly $6 billion a year in climate change science and technology programs,‖

Hoover explained. ―In the name of scientific integrity and the effective use of our resources

we should demand examination of the scientific bases and motives of climate change

alarms and make sure that our support for energy programs is in the best interests of

ourselves, our descendents and the world in general. A mixture of pseudoscience, emotion

and politics is very dangerous,‖ he added. (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry

Department expressed his outrage at NASA warming scientist James Hansen and referred

to him as ―an apocalyptic prophet.‖ ―My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has

finally gone off the deep end. When you have dedicated the bulk of your career to a cause,

and it turns out the cause has been proven false, most people cannot bring themselves to

admit the truth,‖ Drapela wrote on June 24, 2008. Drapela wrote that Hansen‘s recent

claims ―contain neither reason nor truth when compared to the volumes of daily literature

being published in scientific journals today on climate change. It is not difficult to refute

the words of Professor Hansen. On the contrary, one feels it is almost unfair.‖ ―The global

warming ‗time bomb,‘ the ‗present, dangerous situation,‘ ‗the perfect storm,‘ ‗global

cataclysm,‘ ‗disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.‘

These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist,‖ Drapela added.

Drapela also chided the UN. ―The International Panel on Climate Change is a body of the

156

United Nations. It is not a scientific body; it is a political body,‖ he wrote. Drapela also

noted that he is ―not a Republican; owns no stocks in oil companies (or any other

companies); loves the outdoors and the environment; loves polar bears and clean air and

water.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Geologist Allan Shepard, former Chief Geologist for Amoco International and

member of the Association of Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta,

dissented in 2009. ―I conclude that there has been both slight warming and cooling over the

past hundred years or more largely driven by the sun and its interaction with clouds, winds,

ocean currents etc. CO2's contribution to any warming is negligible,‖ Shepard wrote to the

Environment and Public Works Committee on February 12, 2009. ―It took only a few

months of research to find that I was skeptical for the reason that the IPCC was in my

estimation a politicized monopolistic scientific body,‖ Shepard wrote.

Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured

about climate change at the University of Aberdeen and was the former chief

executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman. Buckee dissented in 2009 and predicted the

Earth is entering a 20 year cooling period. "I think [climate skepticism] is the dominant

view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and

quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it's so frowned

upon." Buckee said according to a February 11, 2009, article. "Any dissension is like a

heresy. People are stamped on so they can't be heard. That has religious overtones." The

article continued, ―In the lecture, Dr. Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar

activity is responsible for changes to the climate. He will say the climate of the past few

hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age

10,000 years ago. During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He

believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity. When the sun is strong, it

deflects cosmic rays from within and outside our galaxy. When the sun is weak, the rays

enter the Earth's atmosphere and cause low cloud, which has a cooling effect. He believes

that, after a period of warming, the Earth is now entering a period of cooling that will last

until 2030 or beyond. It is just one of the many theories put forward by sceptics, who argue

that humans are not responsible for climate change.‖ (LINK)

Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer, and

engineer, worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular

dynamics simulations and continues to teach at Hendrix College and the University of

Central Arkansas. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth,

described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global

warming debate.” Hoffman chastised the climate science community in 2009. ―Once

again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data

errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers. Sometimes it

is the scientists themselves who discover the errors, as with the non-disappearing ice sheets

of Greenland,‖ Hoffman wrote on February 19, 2009. ―More often than not, it is outside

observers uncovering the errors, casting doubt on the trustworthiness of all science. This is

exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‗consensus science‘ and not

scientific fact. What is happening to the Arctic ice this year? So far, the sea ice extent is

tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole

might be a bit premature,‖ Hoffman explained. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

157

Engineer Allen Simmons worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and

wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites, TIROS

(Television and Infra-Red Observation Satellite) 1-9. Simmons also led a team of

engineers and scientists to develop computer systems for the NIMBUS series of polar

orbiting satellites which were designed to collect meteorological, atmospheric,

geological, oceanographic, and other environmental data. Simmons also aided in the

development of the first mapping images of Mars. Simmons dissented from global

warming claims in 2009 and co-authored the book The Resilient Earth, described as

―bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.‖

―When you read The Resilient Earth, you will learn if the IPCC passes or fails the three

pillars of science. As our research and writing progressed, our knowledge of the

interrelated makeup of Earth's environment grew. We learned our understanding is far from

complete when we realized how complex Earth's climate is. Throughout our efforts, our

goal was to convey an unbiased and undistorted view of the science behind Earth's

changing climate. We hope our passion for both science and protecting the natural world

are evident in our words,‖ Simmons said according to a February 6, 2009, article. ―We are

challenging computer models which predict Earth's temperature 100 years in the future. So

the main purpose of the book was to uncover the who, how, and why these long-range

predictions of Earth's temperature were being made. During our research, we discovered a

thing missing - hard science and how little of it made it into debate. Further surprise came

from the lack of knowledge among the general public and, believe it or not, among some

scientists actually involved in climatology. We discovered global warming is a topic much

discussed but little understood. We called it ‗Global Confusion,‘‖ Simmons explained.

―The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate

is hardly about science. It has become a cause célèbre, championed by activists, politicians

and celebrities. To deny their belief that humans are the cause of global warming, is to

invoke their wrath,‖ he added.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Ohio‟s NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl who was the youngest person to be

granted the American Metrological (AMS) Seal of Approval, dissented from man-made

climate fears in 2009. ―Just wait 5 or 10 years, and it will be very obvious. They‘ll have

egg on their faces,‖ Ganahl said of the promoters of global warming fears according to a

February 5, 2009, article. ―It is remarkable how many people are being led like sheep in the

wrong direction,‖ Ganahl explained. ―Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame

for the slow warming of the globe,‖ Ganahl said. ―It has nothing to do with us. When there

are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and

the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the

earth cools. I have always thought we should celebrate and be thankful we live in a time

when it is warmer, not curse it,‖ Ganahl said. ―It allows us to grow food and feed the

population—and the warming is slow and we can adapt to it. Cold, on the other hand, is to

blame for a whole host of worldly disasters, including death of the Aztecs, the Vikings, and

who knew?— the bubonic plague,‖ Ganahl said. ―Instead of screaming global warming, we

should be preaching global cooling,‖ he added. The article noted that ―with a new president

who apparently buys into the whole carbon emission demonizing scam, Ganahl said, ‗It‘s

very scary,‘ and admittedly ‗very difficult‘ to fight the mob mentality. ‗Carbon dioxide is

what we, as people, exhale. Enough said. Unless you eliminate people, you have it. It‘s

food for the plants and trees,‘ he said.‖ ―Just tell [the promoters of global warming] to wait

158

five or ten years, and I‘ll have history to back me up,‖ he concluded. In a fo llow-up

February 19, 2009, article, Ganahl explained how he was under siege for expressing

skepticism. ―I started to fear for my personal safety,‖ Ganahl said. ―I worried that someone

was going to ambush me while I‘m walking the dog at midnight,‖ he added. But the tide

turned and he received ―hundreds of emails‖ supporting him. ―This thing has gone

worldwide,‖ he said. ―I‘ve had mail from 12 countries, 20 states, and some unidentified,‖

he added. Ganahl also received a call of support from American Meteorologist Society

President Thomas Karl. ―In my whole career, I‘ve never got a call from him,‖ he said.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Professional Geologist Gary Walker, a member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum

Geologists, declared his dissent from climate fears. ―I have done extensive research

regarding the global warming debate and have come to the conclusion that while global

warming is real (the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age), the amount

of this warming that has taken place in the last 150 years that has been caused by

anthropogenic CO2 is very much uncertain,‖ Walker wrote to Environment and Public

Works Committee on January 27, 2009. ―Climate models are in large part based on

assumptions not facts. In my opinion MUCH more research has to be done and more

climate data has to be collected before we can even attempt to quantify the effects of

anthropogenic CO2 on our climate system. I would estimate more than 95% of the

petroleum geologists and geophysicists in Alberta (there are probably over 4000) are

somewhat skeptical when it comes to the claims being made about global warming. Our

views come as a result not just from our education but also our occupation where we see

the effects of constant climate change via the rock record,‖ Walker explained. ―Personally I

feel the media has done a bad job with respect to reporting the global warming issue. Most

stories focus on the most pessimistic climate forecasts imagined. Many of the stories quote

scientists who feel strongly man is causing global warming,‖ Walker concluded.

Geologist Dr. A. Neil Hutton, former District Geologist for Northwest Territories and

the Arctic Islands and former Assistant Chief Geologist for the Western Canadian

Basin, wrote a January 2009 analysis skeptical of man-made global warming. ―On the

whole, the media have done a remarkably poor job in reporting on global warming.

Typically, the reports have been a simple regurgitation of the spin produced by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),‖ Hutton wrote. ―In an extraordinary

move last spring the IPCC released the 21-page SPM for the Fourth Assessment Report

(2007) more than three months ahead of the 1,600-page scientific report. This was to

ensure that the scientific report was consistent with the SPM. In other words the science

was not to conflict with the politics!‖ Hutton explained. ―The general public and the media,

apparently, are quite unaware of these contradictions and are much taken up with the

emotional aspects of the reports of melting arctic ice, glaciers, and the snows of

Kilimanjaro, as well as many other weather catastrophes appearing in the press,‖ he added.

In the long term, the failure to challenge the so-called consensus will be detrimental to

scientists and our future ability to legitimately influence public policy,‖ he added. ―Most of

the statements from the SPM are unproven assumptions and a review of the literature on

the basis of a truly multidisciplinary approach involving physics, geology, history, and

archaeology leads to much different conclusions,‖ he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

159

Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected

to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic

Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee. Miles, who was recognized

for his scientific contributions by direct election to Fellowship of the UK‟s Royal

Institute of Chemistry, chastised the UN IPCC for its global warming claims. ―There is no

credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC and

there can be no such thing as an average world temperature,‖ Miles wrote in November

2008. ―The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or

pretending to be one. It is now showing its true colors in its use of fantasy and propaganda

to advance its environmental socialist agenda. Environmentalism has become a quasi-

religion,‖ Miles wrote. ―It is not becoming clear to scientists that in identifying the

complete falsity of the IPCC‘s pronouncements they are seeing the work of an organization

that used pseudo-science to promote an ideology. Their leaders betrayed the trust of the

world community. They have no interest in the genuine investigation of the complex

factors involved in long-term climate change. The IPCC should be abolished and climate

research left to existing reputable research organizations,‖ he wrote. (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Lloyd C. Furer, a past Associate Scientist and Visiting Professor at

Indiana University and who served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Air Force, has

authored more than 35 publications and declared his skepticism in 2009. ―I have been

told that there is a list of about 650 scientists who have doubts the human-produced CO2

has little or nothing do with the current global warming. You can certainly list me as a

skeptic,‖ Furer wrote to wrote to Environment & Public Works Committee on February 3,

2009, requesting to be added to the dissenting scientist report. ―I've been exposed to

climate change in the geologic record many times in the past 40 years and I have a strong

interest in climate change possibly as a result of starting my science career in the USAF Air

Weather Service during the Korean War,‖ Furer explained. ―The past two winters here in

Wisconsin (Ft. Atkinson) leads me to believe that we have entered a cycle of global

cooling!‖ he added. (LINK)

Physicist and environmental activist John Droz, Jr., who holds a graduate degree in

physics from Syracuse University, wrote an analysis of global warming in January 2009.

―As a physicist and environmental activist, I applaud your efforts to educate the public

about the Global Warming issue,‖ Droz wrote to Environment & Public Works Committee

on January 28, 2009. ―The negative consequences of going down this scientifically

unresolved path are almost unfathomable,‖ Droz added. ―‗Global Warming‘ is still a

scientifically unresolved matter,‖ he explained. ―What concerns me most is that our

national energy policies are being driven by the assumption that this hypothesis is true.

There is considerable scientific evidence that contradicts the assumptions and conclusions

of this theory. Unfortunately, the main proponents of the Global Warming Theory have not

been able to provide scientific explanations for these contradictions. This seriously

undermines the validity of their position. Worse, when contradicting scientific evidence is

presented, the presenters are often characterized as ‗non-believers,‘ ‗deniers,‘ or worse,‖

Droz wrote. ―There are other theories that have been put forth by very qualified scientists,

and these alternative explanations are supported by significant scientific data. These other

theories also have their weak points, but the fact is that they do explain some facets of the

Climate Change situation better than the Global Warming Theory does,‖ he concluded.

(LINK)

160

Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the

EPA‟s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and was a former adjunct professor in the

Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan. Wolf, who

has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and

aerosols, was the Principal Research Scientist and Manager for Atmospheric

Modeling and Assessment and Climate Change Programs for General Motors

Research Laboratories. Wolff received the Frank A. Chambers Award by the Air and

Waste Management Association for outstanding technical achievement to the science

of air pollution. He is also a member of the American Meteorological Society, the

American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of

Science. ―As an atmospheric scientist for over thirty years, engaged in studying and

seeking solutions to environmental problems, I am appalled at the state of discord in the

field of climate science,‖ Wolf told the Environment and Public Works Committee on

January 23, 2009. ―For too many in the field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific

inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained. The basis for the crisis-level global warming

concerns are climate models (and their predictions) that are not validated and poorly

reproduce the observed hydrological cycle. In addition, the surface temperature networks

are contaminated by urban and other land-use influences,‖ Wolf explained. ―These facts

alone should be reason for skepticism. However, many additional reasons exist. There is

no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere. Historical accounts and

paleoclimatological evidence tell us that it has been significantly warmer and significantly

colder in the past. Moreover, in the past, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2

concentrations, which imply that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not

visa versa,‖ he added. ―Furthermore, statistical relationships between solar activity proxies

and climate hint at a controlling relationship with the sun even though observed solar

variability alone is insufficient to explain all of the variation in temperature. It is

unconscionable that solar and other natural phenomena, such as the oceanic oscillations,

are not included in the dialogue as we pursue explanations for the recent warm

temperatures and a more recent apparent cooling trend,‖ he concluded. (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy

in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the

American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, dissented form man-made

climate fears in 2009 and slammed the media for "journalistic malpractice" for promoting

fear and attempting to discredit scientists skeptical. ―According to the [Baltimore Sun]

editorial ‗A New Year's resolution‘ (Jan. 2, 2009), tens of thousands of scientists like me

are ‗flat-earth types.‘ I guess my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn't

give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate

as an editor with an agenda,‖ Campbell wrote on January 13, 2009. ―If we are going to

stoop to name-calling, an appropriate name for people with the view The Baltimore Sun

endorses could be ‗Chicken Littles.‘ But instead of claiming that the sky is falling, they

claim the sky is burning. The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that

man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science

is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than

thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true,‖ Campbell explained. ―And

161

I don't even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it's just that the press only

promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are

skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by

humans has any influence on the Earth's climate. Arguing that our country should decrease

its use of fossil fuels is a laudable goal, but the reason to do so should be to reduce our

reliance on energy from foreign sources, not to reduce the danger from some imaginary

boogeyman,‖ he added. ―The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to

journalistic malpractice,‖ Campbell concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

(LINK)

Miroslav Kutilek, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science and Soil Physics at Czech

Technical University in Prague who specialized in paleoclimatology of soil, received

the “Mendel's award in Biological Sciences” from the Academy of Sciences in Prague

and is an Honorary Member International Union of Soil Science.. Kutilek dissented

from man-made climate claims and cited the views in ―Rationally on Global Warming‖ to

describe his view of man-made claimte fears. ―The Earth climate change is influenced by

eight factors: (1) Milanković cycles, (2) Solar activity, (3) Continental drift, (4)

Greenhouse gases, (5) Thermohaline circulation, (6) Aerosols, volcanoes and asteroids, (7)

Vegetation cover, (8) Earth magnetic field,‖ Kutilek wrote to the minority staff of the

Environment and Public Works Committee on December 25, 2008. ―Except of continental

drift acting on geologic scale all remaining seven factors may contribute to the recent

change of climate. The climate oscillations in Holocene were not caused by the change of

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the warm periods were typical by higher

temperature than the recent average. The rate of temperature rise was in several well

documented instances higher than in the last two decades. Assumption on dominant role of

greenhouse gases in recent global warming is therefore false. Catastrophic scenarios on the

influence of global warming upon the further existence of homo sapiens are not

scientifically based since the climate change contributed first to the hominization of ape

and later on to the development of historical civilizations,‖ Kutilek wrote.

Coastal Engineer Cyril Galvin wrote an analysis for the American Geophysical Union

(AGU) titled “Human Impacts on Climate” in which he dissented from the global

warming position statement of the AGU. ―My opinion on the subject derives from more

than 50 years as an AGU member with long and broad interest,‖ Galvin wrote in the

November 2008 AGU publication. ―The prevailing assumption in the press, in legislative

considerations, and in climate science is that global warming causes seal level rise, which

causes beach erosion,‖ Galvin explained. ―Nowhere on the sandy ocean shores of the world

is there a beach whose erosion ahs been documented to be caused by sea level rise,‖ Galvin

wrote. ―The above sample of facts and outside opinions, as well as my observation of the

scientific process, suggest that global warming is not the settled question described in the

AGU December 2007 position statement,‖ Galvin wrote. ―Since 1964, I have attended at

least 30 AGU annual meetings and have contributed at least 40 posters and talks before at

least 10 AGU sections,‖ Galvin wrote.

Nuclear Chemist Gary L. Troyer has worked as an analytical chemist and was a

Fellow Scientist at the Westinghouse Hanford Company and has authored numerous

papers related to measurements of radionuclides and laboratory applications. Troyer,

who teaches part time at Kenya Methodist University in Meru, Kenya, dissented from

162

man-made climate fears in 2009. ―Scientists have long known that umbrellas do not cause

rain. Similarly, there is significant historical evidence that warming causes increases in

atmospheric carbon dioxide,‖ Troyer wrote to the minority staff of the Environment and

Public Works Committee on January 28, 2009. ―The linking of the admittedly measurable

3% increase by man on this concentration of the last 50 years is however, not necessarily

correlated with temperature variation,‖ Troyer continued. ―Predicative climate models have

been shown to be highly un-useful,‖ he added. ―As we gather more definitive data about

climate response, we are seeing these models adjusted dramatically downward showing

that man‘s ‗carbon footprint‘ is likely quite irrelevant,‖ Troyer wrote. (LINK)

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or

edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of

proxy data, has conducted climate change investigations for the Department of

Energy, and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to

investigate the Little Ice Age. For her doctoral work and several subsequent

investigations, Douglas investigated global climate change using tree rings to

reconstruct past climates. However, because tree-rings can only be used to reconstruct

relatively recent climate change (past 2,000 to 7,000 years), and this period is not long

enough to understand the physical dynamics driving global warming of the past 150

years, Douglas called on her background in paleo-environmental reconstructions to

investigate conditions at the end of the last interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago)

to lay the framework for understanding current global warming. Douglas, a former

lecturer in geography at San Diego State University, dissented from man-made

climate fears in 2009. Douglas was planning on releasing a major new paper she

authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on

March 20, 2009. (Paper Abstract available here:

http://www.enamecenter.org/en/collo_douglas ) ―I would be happy to be added to the

Senate report of dissenting scientists,‖ Douglas told the Environment and Public Works

Committee on March 10, 2009. ―The recent ‗panic‘ to control GHG (greenhouse gas)

emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that

US and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it

is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,‖ Douglass explained. ―For my

paper, I reviewed all of the IPCC technical reports and summary reports, and over 150

academic papers on this issue. I also reviewed and analyzed NOAA data for the ice cores

and CDIAC data on global CO2 emissions,‖ she wrote. The UN IPCC ―did not adequately

consider natural forcing mechanisms (per my paper). The technical reports were prepared

by top climate scientists, whom I respect--if they were given the time and money to pursue

the research I recommend at the end of my paper, I'm sure their findings would be

different,‖ Douglas wrote. ―I would hope that if Gore and Obama's advisors heard my

argument (which has never been presented before in this level of detail) that they would see

the rationale behind my comments, and shift their views. But they may not,‖ she explained.

―My background in Quaternary sciences and then climatology gave me the depth of

understanding of natural forcing mechanisms to always think that the global warming that

has occured since the and of the Little Ice Age is being driven by natural forcing

mechanisms. However, I also have no doubt that people are affecting climate, but

anthropogenic forcing is a layer on top of much larger natural forcing mechanisms. By

ignoring the role of natural mechanisms (beyond celestial mechanics and volcanism) we

are endangering the lives and livelihoods of billions of people, and spending limited

163

financial resources to stop global warming when it can not be stopped,‖ Douglas wrote.

(LINK) (LINK) (LINK) [Updated: March 16, 2009]

# #

End of 2008/2009 report.

# # #

164

Complete Reprint of 2007 report:

U. S. Senate Report

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-

Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Scientists Debunk “Consensus”

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Minority Staff Report (Inhofe) www.epw.senate.gov/minority

Released: December 20, 2007

Contact: Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov (202) 224-5762 Matthew Dempsey – Matthew_Dempsey@EPW.Senate.gov (202) 224-9797 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Report available at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Se

165

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists

Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced

significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global

warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by

the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of

the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of

whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing

number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin

conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than

shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-

made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are

also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green

movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and

academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and

weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from

public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus

busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues

shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric

scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical

Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed

studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability

to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also

July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and

intimidation - LINK ]

166

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN

IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands,

Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to

oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an

open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

(LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at

Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate

change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned

with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological

Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my

opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra

Pachauri implied that there were only ―about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.

(LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change

are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the

moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields,

including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology;

oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering;

physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their

outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN

IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including:

Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of

Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of

Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of

Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre;

the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands

Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of

the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame;

Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World

Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often

media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in

man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum

167

Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now

Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

– (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made

global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists.

LINK) ]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears

that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe

that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who

"believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 -

LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien

said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific

skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil

fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as

"one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by

industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists

as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by

those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has

about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a

prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses

no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While

some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try

to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels,

Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so

someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's

not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of

skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the

climate debate "over" and added ―it's completely immoral, even, to question‖ the UN‘s

scientific ―consensus." (LINK)

168

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was ―criminally irresponsible‖ to ignore the urgency of global warming on

November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006:

"After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global

warming. (LINK)

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400

international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical

Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-

reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of

temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by

IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even

0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special

about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the

Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a

2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on

Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‗greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive

the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell

Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the

Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made

climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate

change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the

development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The

Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally

recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday

picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number -

entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate

reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial,

and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather

Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The

media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and

many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the

climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30,

2007.

169

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin

and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a

climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? -

The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‗the Earth is

warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‗the ice melts' and ‗sea level rises,' the

Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the

average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-

believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the

existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the

Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with

the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2

lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible

amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological

Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of

solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there

seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic

radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in

global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of

greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in

Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which

I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini

noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a

scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years

experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published

nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and

Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for

major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft)

with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to

directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate

on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable

scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist

with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed

climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done

by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop

worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

170

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the

Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be

overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened

in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association

of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to

review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to

the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And

because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about

climate change I have decided that ‗real' climatologists should try to help the public

understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World

Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University

of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new

peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-

caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray,

an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and

author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The

[IPCC] ‗Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the

report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide

environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon

dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy

Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-

warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With

religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for

the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in

Warsaw: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made

global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for

politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of

the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and

Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work

emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation

between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate

and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW

(anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior

is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

171

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be „Excessively

Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the

peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2

greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively

exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global

climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish

National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the

Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member

of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-

reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the

energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate.

Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect

climate."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of

Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the

Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical

views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many

persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on

climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in

Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public

Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar

variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the

puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The

GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well

served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by

advocates."

# # #

172

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time

the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for

Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a

scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK)

Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's

peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

& (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for

Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a

process described as more closely resembling a political party‘s convention platform battle,

not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements

endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the

NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate

statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these

institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-

file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in

favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate

conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep

cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of

these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate

conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing

number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies

have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007

peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A

December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface

temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval

Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and

shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the

journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation

changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed

studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global

Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the

voices of the "silent majority" of scientists.

# #

173

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said,

"Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of

views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made

global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and

Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost

70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well

as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that

reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years

or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing

special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability

to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by

the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield

abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained.

"Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected

from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas),

which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean.

The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much

slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite

possible that after an ‗adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the

atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the

atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the

inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal

and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so

they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is

nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for

transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this

exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made

known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the

anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake

place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also

noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of

my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish

their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science

researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaigns do a

disservice to the environmental movement. "Promoting the global warming myth trains

174

people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that

they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by

doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in

relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence

to change societal structures," Rancourt wrote in a February 27, 2007 blog post. Rancourt

believes that global warming "will not become humankind's greatest threat until the sun has

its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still

around,)" and noted that even if C02 emissions were a grave threat, "government action and

political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present

world." Rancourt believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global

warming as a crisis. "I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-

driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might;

and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In

my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have

effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized," Rancourt wrote. Rancourt also questioned

the whole concept of a global average temperature, noting, "Averaging problems aside,

many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final

global average temperature curves." He further explained: "This means that determining an

average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and

continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and

places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly

sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate)

the average." "The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming

by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely," he added.

Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. "There is no known case of a

sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population," he said, adding,

"As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological

diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator." Rancourt added,

"Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class." (LINK)

Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University expressed climate

skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by

worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop

worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

"What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still

natural," Kukla explained. (LINK) Kukla "said that the accelerating warming of the Earth

is not caused by man but by the regularities of the planets' circulation around the Sun,"

according to a June 4, 2007 article in the Prague Monitor. "The changes in the Earth's

circulation around the Sun are now extremely slow. Moreover, they are partially being

compensated by the human impact on the climate. I think we will know more in about 50

years," Kukla said. Kukla is viewed as a pioneer in the study of solar forcing of climate

changes. (LINK) & (LINK)

One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological

Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is some evidence to show

that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly

responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt,

175

however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will

really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts,

even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect," Radhakrishna wrote in

an August 23, 2007 essay. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as

global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times,

giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles. We appear to be now only in the middle of an

interglacial cycle showing a trend toward warming as warming and cooling are global and

have occurred on such a scale when humans had not appeared on the planet. If we read

geology correctly, the earth we live on is not dead but is dynamic and is continuously

changing. The causes of these changes are cosmogenic and nothing we are able to do is

likely to halt or reverse such processes," he explained. "Warming of the climate, melting of

glaciers, rise in sea levels and other marked changes in climate - these do not pose

immediate threats and there is besides, no way of controlling such changes even if we want

to. Exercises at mitigation of these likely disasters are, however, possible and mankind, in

all likelihood, will gradually adjust itself to the changed conditions. This has happened

before; men and animals have moved to greener pastures and adapted themselves to the

changed situations," he added. (LINK)

Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology

who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who

has written four books on weather and climate, says "the science of climate change will

probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now

(wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to

be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November

27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human

induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities. (For example,

the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly increased

precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern

Europe, and northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of

the signatories of a December 13, 2007 open letter critical of the UN IPCC process.

―Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's

computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer

projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998,‖ the

letter Maunder signed stated. ―That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-

century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-

decadal or millennial climate cycling,‖ the letter added. (LINK)

Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian

Academy of Sciences dismissed alarmist climate fears of all of the world's ice melting in a

March 27, 2007 article. "The planet may rest assured," Osokin wrote. "This hypothetical

catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years," he explained.

"Today, scientists say that the melting of the permafrost has stalled, which has been proved

by data obtained by meteorological stations along Russia's Arctic coast," Olokin added.

"The (recent) period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most

natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter

how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice

versa." (LINK)

176

Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from

University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief

Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking

up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean

Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative

Research Center. Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears.

"They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of

them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the

sake of the overall reputation of science," Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed

entitled "Global Warming - Not Really a Done Deal?" Paltridge is best known

internationally for his work on atmospheric radiation and on the theoretical basis of climate

change. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. Paltridge also worked with

the National Climate Program Office. "Even as it is, the barriers to public dissemination of

results that might cast doubt on one aspect or another of accepted greenhouse wisdom are

extraordinarily high. Climate scientists rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by

ideas not supportive of the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the

threats to mankind and that it is caused by human folly - the burning of fossil fuels to

support our way of life," Paltridge explained. "In a way, their situation is very similar to

that of the software engineers who sold the concept of the Y2K bug a decade ago. The

‗reputation stakes' have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of

international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then,

should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action

rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold," he

added. "Pity the politicians who (we presume) are trying their best to make an informed

decision on the matter. Of course politicians realize that those clamoring for their attention

on any particular issue usually have other un-stated agendas. But they may not recognize

that scientists too are human and are as subject as the rest of us to the seductions of well-

funded campaigns. One of the more frightening statements about global warming to be

heard now from the corridors of power is that ‗the scientists have spoken'. Well maybe they

have - some of them anyway - but the implication of god-like infallibility is a bit hard to

take," he concluded.

Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric

Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the

University of Arizona is a member of both the Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth‟s Executive Committee and the Committee on Global Change. Herman

questioned how the UN IPCC could express 90% confidence that humans have warmed the

planet. "That conclusion was really surprising to me, it having come from a world wide

group of supposedly outstanding climate experts," Herman wrote in an April 6, 2007 article

in Climate Science. Herman, who is currently studying several satellite based remote

sensing projects to monitor ozone, temperature, water vapor, and aerosols from space,

noted that the climate models are not cooperating with predictions of a man-made climate

catastrophe. "Now, the models also predict that the mid tropospheric warming should

exceed that observed at the ground, but satellite data contradicts this," Herman wrote.

(LINK)

Prof. Francis Massen of the Physics Laboratory in Luxemburg and the leader of a

meteorological station examined the UN IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM). "The

177

SPM conceals that the methane concentration in the atmosphere has been stable for seven

years (and nobody knows exactly why); not one climatic model foresaw this," Massen

wrote in a February 2007 article entitled "IPCC 4AR SPM: Gloom and Doom." (translated)

Massen noted there is an "unrestrained contest among media, environmental groups and

politicians" to paint as dire a picture as possible of future climate conditions following the

UN summary. Massen called some of the climate reporting "absolute rubbish." "It seems

that in the climatic area a new faith fight has broken out, which has all characteristics of

historical Religion," he added. (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center

in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is

promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many

scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate

system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. "I

believe we have the duty to inform people about the true facts of global warming. It is

interesting that is this global warming era of hysteria we just lived a very cold week with

snow in the higher elevation of Southern Brazil and that the next week could be even

colder with low temperatures not seen in this part of the globe during the month of May in

the last 20 to 30 years. It is not only South Africa that is freezing. South America is under a

sequence of cold blasts not seen since the very cold climatic winter of 2000 (La Niña),"

Hackbart concluded. In a June 5, 2007 article, Hackbart noted that the "historical cold

events in Southern Brazil (in 1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect

in common. They all took place around the 11-year sun cycle solar minimum." (LINK) &

(LINK)

Ocean researcher Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) senior manager and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer,

who led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions,

Oceans and Coastal Zones. Everett, who is also project manager for the UN Atlas of

the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the

impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries." Everett, who publishes the

website http://www.climatechangefacts.info/index.htm also expressed skepticism about

climate fears in 2007. "It is time for a reality check," Everett testified to Natural Resources

Committee in the U.S. Congress on April 17, 2007. "Warming is not a big deal and is not a

bad thing," Everett emphasized. "The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and

colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change," Everett said. "In the

oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years

as in an El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic

Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology changes rapidly to the new state

in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed those expected with global warming

and occur much faster. The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000,

has brought the global average temperature from 56.5 to 57.5 degrees. This is at the level of

noise in this rapidly changing system," Everett explained. "I would much rather have the

present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring

temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us

that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were

2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so

productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated," he added. "More

178

of the warming, if it comes, will be during winters and at night and toward the poles. For

most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay

warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution," he explained. "No one

knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we

are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more," Everett concluded.

Everett also worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service as Division Chief for

Fisheries Development in the 1970s and he noted that the concern then was about how

predicted global cooling would impact the oceans. (LINK) & (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska

Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has

twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists," released a scientific study of the

Arctic on March 2007 that concluded the recent warming was likely "natural" and not

manmade. (LINK) Akasofu, an award winning scientist who has published more than 550

professional journal articles and authored or co-authored 10 books, also recently blasted the

UN IPCC process. "I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was

good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field," Akasofu said in an April

1, 2007 interview. "But so many [scientists] jumped in, and the media is looking for a

disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control," Akasofu added. The article

continued: "Akasofu said there is no data showing that ‗most' of the present warming is due

to the man-made greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change wrote in February. "If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data

that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the

present," Akasofu said. The article concluded: "Akasofu said scientists who support the

man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring

the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been

available in the satellite era only since the 1960s and 1970s. ‗Young researchers are

interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,' he said. ‗All the papers

since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That's what I call 'instant climatology.' I'm

trying to tell young scientists, 'You can't study climatology unless you look at a much

longer time period.'" (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the

Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf

D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the

Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics." The abstract of

the paper reads in part, "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming

phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are

no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently

mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas

of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is

unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric

greenhouse conjecture is falsified." Gerlich and Tscheuschner's study concluded, "The

horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North

America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as

they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes

and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are

ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide

179

themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic

education or even of the physics training." (LINK) & (LINK)

Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological

Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN

IPCC, expressed skepticism of climate fears in 2007. A July 7, 2007 article in Canada's

Financial Post read, "In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere

and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as

the atmosphere. ‗The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the

oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,' explains

Prof. Segalstad. ‗This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2

exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all

the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.'" The article continued,

"Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard

technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200

years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its

current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that

half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in ‗a missing sink.' Many studies have sought

this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success. ‗It is a

search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a

hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of

fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,' Prof. Segalstad concludes. ‗It is all a

fiction.'" (LINK)

Geologist Dr. David Kear, the former director of geological survey at the Department

of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand, called predictions of rising sea level

as a result of man-made global warming "science fiction," and said the basic rules of

science are being ignored. "When youngsters are encouraged to take part in a school

science fair the first thing they are told to do is check the results, then re-check them,

something NIWA [National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research] appear to have

forgotten to do," Kear said in a April 13, 2007 article. "In looking at the next 50 years, why

have they not studied the past 50 years and applied their findings to the predictions? One

would think this was a must," Kear explained. The article continued, "First global warming

predictions made in 1987 estimated an annual rise in sea levels of 35mm. That scared the

world but since then, the figure has continued to be reduced by ‗experts.'" Kear concluded,

"Personal beliefs on climate change and rising sea levels should be delayed until just one of

the many predictions made since 1985 on the basis of carbon additions to the atmosphere

comes true." (LINK)

Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role

of the Sun in Climate Change and has worked at both the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric

Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to evaluate how accurate climate models

have been. Hoyt wrote, "Starting in 1997, we created a scorecard to see how climate model

predictions were matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of the

predictions being wrong in magnitude and often in sign." (LINK) A March 1, 2007 blog

post in the National Review explained how the scoring system works. "[Hoyt] gives each

prediction a ‗yes-no-undetermined score.' So if the major models' prediction is confirmed,

180

the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared

with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27

disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined," the blog noted. Hoyt has extensively researched the

sun-climate connection and has published nearly 100 scientific papers in such areas as the

greenhouse effect, aerosols, cloud cover, radiative transfer, and sunspot structure. (LINK)

To see Hoyt's climate model scorecard, go here: (LINK)

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of

Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized

the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "It is with great regret that

I find media apt to grab any prophesy for catastrophes by ‗reputed scientists' without

hesitation," Winterhalter wrote on his website. Winterhalter, one of the 60 signatories in a

2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, also

wrote, "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established

and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in

the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better

explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on

anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases." "To state that sea level rises or falls due to

global change is completely out of proportion. There are far too many factors affecting this

planet from the inside and the outside to warrant the idea that man is capable of influencing

these natural processes," he added. (LINK)

Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European

Organization for Nuclear Research, believes his research will reveal that the sun and

cosmic rays are a "part of the climate-change cocktail." Kirkby runs a CLOUD (Cosmics

Leaving Outdoor Droplets) project that examines how the sun and cosmic rays impact

clouds and subsequently the climate. In a February 23, 2007 Canadian National Post

article, CERN asserted, "Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance, and

changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate." According to the

National Post article, "Dr. Kirkby has assembled a dream team of atmospheric physicists,

solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists from 18 institutes around the world,

including the California Institute of Technology and Germany's Max-Planck Institutes,

with preliminary data expected to arrive this coming summer. The world of particle physics

is awaiting these results with much anticipation because they promise to unlock mysteries

that can tell us much about climate change, as well as other phenomena." Kirkby once said

his research into the sun and cosmic rays "will probably account for somewhere between a

half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last

century." (LINK)

Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-

Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe the climate is driven by the sun and predict global cooling will soon occur. The two

scientists are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they

have placed a $10,000 wager with a UK scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for

the $10,000 bet will be to "compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those

between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018," according to an April 16, 2007

article in Live Science. (LINK) Bashkirtsev and Mashnich have questioned the view that

the "anthropogenic impact" is driving Earth's climate. "None of the investigations dealing

181

with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact," the two

scientists noted in 2003. Bashkirtsev and Mashnich believe the evidence of solar impacts

on the climate "leave little room for the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate."

They believe that "solar variations naturally explain global cooling observed in 1950-1970,

which cannot be understood from the standpoint of the greenhouse effect, since CO2 was

intensely released into the atmosphere in this period." (LINK)

Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut and

author of The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, debunked fears of

a man-made climate disaster during a presentation in April. "You think SUVs are the cause

of glaciers shrinking? I don't think so," Hayden, who retired after 32 years as a professor,

said, according to an April 25, 2007 article in Maine Today. "Don't believe what you hear

out of Hollywood and Washington, D.C.," Hayden said. According to the article, Hayden

argued that "climate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide

concentration and global warming backwards. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in

the atmosphere, he said, does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead," he said, "a

warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels." Hayden explained, "The sun heats

up the Earth and the oceans warm up and atmospheric carbon dioxide rises." According to

the article, Hayden "said humans' contribution to global carbon dioxide levels is virtually

negligible." Hayden is also the editor of a monthly newsletter called "The Energy

Advocate." (LINK)

Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World

Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University

of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers, questioned man-made

global warming fears. According to an April 27, 2007 article at Zenit.org, Zichichi "pointed

out that human activity has less than 10% impact on the environment." The article noted

that Zichichi "showed that the mathematical models used by the [UN's] IPCC do not

correspond to the criteria of the scientific method. He said the IPCC used ‗the method of

'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological

variations.'" Zichichi said that based upon actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude

the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes," and he added that it is plausible

that "man is not to blame." According to the article, "He also reminded those present that

500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles

disappeared and reformed four times, he said. Zichichi said that in the end he is not

convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of ‗greenhouse gases'

produced through human activity. Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on

the fluctuation of cosmic rays." Zichichi also signed a December 2007 open letter to the

United Nations stating in part "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more

doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." (LINK) & (LINK)

& bio: (LINK)

Renowned Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore, a fellow of the UK's Royal Astronomical

Society, host of the BBC's Sky at Night program since 1957 and author of over 60

books on astronomy called global warming concern ‗rubbish' in an interview with The

Sun in 2005. "I think it's a lot of rubbish! From 1645-1715 the sun was inactive and we had

182

a 'Little Ice Age,'" Moore said. "Then the sun went back to normal and the world warmed

up," he concluded. Moore most recently co-authored two books published in 2006: 50

Years in Space: What We Thought Then What We Know Now; and Bang! The Complete

History of the Universe. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. James P. Koermer, a Professor of Meteorology and the

director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University dismissed man-

made global warming fears. "Global warming hysteria is based to a large extent on the

unproven predictions of climate models. These numerical models are based on many

simplified approximations of very complicated physical processes and phenomena,"

Koermer wrote to EPW on December 3, 2007. "My biggest concern is their [computer

models'] lack of ability to adequately handle water vapor and clouds, which are much more

important as climate factors than anthropogenic contributors. Until we can realistically

simulate types of clouds, their optical thicknesses, and their altitudes, which we have a

difficult time doing for short-term weather forecasts, I can't have much faith in climate

models," Koermer wrote. "Another major reason that I remain skeptical is based on what I

know about past climate changes that occurred before man walked on earth. I am more

amazed with how relatively stable climate has been over the past 15,000 or so years, versus

the large changes that frequently appeared to take place prior to that time. I also can't

ignore some of the recent evidence presented by some very well respected astrophysicists

on solar variability. Most meteorologists including me have always been taught to treat the

sun's output as a constant--now I am not so sure and I am intrigued by their preliminary

findings relating to climate," he concluded. (LINK)

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman, known as the father of the "Green

Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering

high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been

awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the

Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate

fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are

going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on

glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21,

2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and

he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut

back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not

a driving force?" We don't even know how much." [Note: Borlaug died in 2009] (LINK)

Astronomer Dr. Jeff Zweerink of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)

studies gamma rays, black holes, and neutron stars and has declared himself a skeptic of

man-made climate fears. "Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate.

Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth's

biomass, for example," Zweerink wrote on December 18, 2006. "While politicians and

activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning the breeding and domestication of cows

and cultivation of rice, for example, actually does more harm than driving too many

SUV's," Zweerink added. (LINK)

Computer modeler Dr. Donald DuBois, has spent most of his career modeling

computer networks for NASA's International Space Station, GE Space Systems, the

183

Air Force, and the Navy. DuBois is very skeptical of climate computer models predicting

doom. "I know something about how misleading models can be, and the fact that their

underlying assumptions can completely predetermine the results of the model. If the major

climate models that are having a major impact on public policy were documented and put

in the public domain, other qualified professionals around the world would be interested in

looking into the validity of these models," DuBois wrote to EPW on May 17, 2007. "Right

now, climate science is a black box that is highly questionable with unstated assumptions

and model inputs. It is especially urgent that these models come out in the open

considering how much climate change legislation could cost the United States and the

world economies. Ross McKitrick's difficulty in getting the information from [Michael]

Mann on his famous ‗hockey stick' [temperature] curve is a case in point which should be a

scandal not worth repeating. The cost of documenting the models and making them

available would be a trifle; the cost of not doing so could be astronomical," DuBois wrote.

"I headed up a project to model computer networks (to see how they will perform before

they are built) for NASA's International Space Station (including the ground stations

around the globe). If I had suggested a $250 million network for the ISS and said that I

was basing this recommendation on my modeling but the models were not available for

inspection, I would have been laughed out of the auditorium in Houston."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque

Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate

fears. "It's just a political thing, and the lies about global warming are contributing to the

proliferation of nuclear energy," Uriarte said according to a September 2007 article in the

Spanish newspaper El Correo. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study

[climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriarte wrote. "Far from provoking

the so-called greenhouse effect, [CO2] stabilizes the climate." Uriarte noted that "the Earth

is not becoming desertified, it's greener all the time." Uriarte says natural factors dominate

the climate system. "The Earth being spherical, the tropics always receive more heat than

the poles and the imbalance has to be continually rectified. They change places because of

the tilt of the earth's axis. And, moreover, the planet isn't smooth, but rough, which

produces perturbations in the interchange of air masses. We know the history of the climate

very well and it has changed continuously," he wrote. "It's evident that the Earth is a human

planet, and that being so, it's quite normal that we influence the atmosphere. It's something

else altogether to say that things will get worse. I believe that a little more heat will be very

good for us. The epochs of vegetational exuberance coincided with those of more heat," he

explained. "In warm periods, when there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -

more CO2 and water vapour - climate variability is less. In these periods greenhouse gases,

which act as a blanket, cushion the differences between the tropics and the poles. There is

less interchange of air masses, less storms. We're talking about a climate which is much

less variable," he added. (Translation) (LINK)

Professor David F. Noble of Canada's York University authored the book America by

Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism and co-founded a

group designed to make scientific and technological research relevant to the needs of

working people. Noble, a former curator at the Smithsonian Institution in

Washington and a former professor at MIT, is a committed environmentalist and a man-

made global warming skeptic. Noble now believes that the movement has "hyped the

global climate issue into an obsession." Noble wrote a May 8, 2007 essay entitled "The

184

Corporate Climate Coup" which details how global warming has "hijacked" the

environmental left and created a "corporate climate campaign" which has "diverted

attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement." Noble wrote, "Don‘t

breathe. There‘s a total war on against CO2 emissions, and you are releasing CO2 with

every breath. The multi-media campaign against global warming now saturating our senses,

which insists that an increasing CO2 component of greenhouse gases is the enemy, takes no

prisoners: you are either with us or you are with the 'deniers.' No one can question the new

orthodoxy or dare risk the sin of emission. If Bill Clinton were running for president today

he would swear he didn‘t exhale." Noble added, "How did scientific speculation so swiftly

erupt into ubiquitous intimations of apocalypse?" (LINK)

Award-winning quaternary geologist Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, a professor from the

University of Iceland who has conducted extensive expeditions and field research in

the both the Arctic and Antarctic, chilled fears that the iconic polar bear is threatened

by global warming. Ingolfsson was awarded the prestigious "Antarctic Service Medal

of the United States" by the National Science Foundation. "We have this specimen that

confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago,

and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period,"

Ingolfsson said according to a December 10, 2007 article in the BBC. The article

explained, "And what's interesting about that is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was

much warmer than the Holocene (the present)." Ingolfsson continued, "This is telling us

that despite the on-going warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so

worried about the polar bear. That would be very encouraging." Ingolfsson is optimistic

about the polar bears future because of his research about the Earth's history. "The polar

bear is basically a brown bear that decided some time ago that it would be easier to feed on

seals on the ice. So long as there are seals, there are going to be polar bears. I think the

threat to the polar bears is much more to do with pollution, the build up of heavy metals in

the Arctic. This is just how I interpret it. But this is science - when you have little data, you

have lots of freedom," he concluded. (LINK)

Over 100 Prominent International Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate

Control Efforts in a December 13, 2007 open letter. "Attempts to prevent global climate

change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of

resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter

signed by the scientists read. (LINK) The scientists, many of whom are current and

former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an

open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears

and the UN's so-called "solutions." "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural

phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral

and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from

unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,"

the scientists wrote. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of

climate change is ‗settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more

doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter

added. [EPW Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable

doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-

Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) &

"New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980

185

- 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th

Century' (LINK) - New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and

shows no human influence." (LINK) - A November peer-reviewed study in the journal

Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation

changes" LINK ) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in

2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) -

For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-

Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK - ] The scientists' letter continued: "The

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued

increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon

dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we

understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's

conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will

markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to

significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." "The

IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst

politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation.

Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final

drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC

contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified

to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The

summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,"

the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary

for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An

analysis by Australian climate researcher John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC

peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK & LINK ] The letter was signed by

renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of

Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the "Fathers of Meteorology"; Atmospheric

pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute;

Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research

Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning

MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of

New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean

Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University;

Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,

chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection

in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC

reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in

Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Other

scientists (not already included in this report) who signed the letter include: Don Aitkin,

PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of

Canberra, Australia; Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics,

University of Auckland, New Zealand; Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist,

U.S.; Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology

in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada; Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist

and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands; William Evans, PhD, Editor, American

Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.; R. W.

Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology,

186

School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa;

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay;

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical

Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden; Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and

Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia; Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow,

Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of

Economic Analysis, Russia; Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology,

Sydney, NSW, Australia; Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric

Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia; Jan J.H.

Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers),

Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The

Netherlands; Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft

University of Technology, The Netherlands; Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor,

Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; The Rt. Hon.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former

Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.; Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality

consultant, Calgary, Canada; William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company

director, Tiburon, California, U.S.; A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology

(Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of

the European Association of Science Editors; Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for

Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany; Alister

McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; Frank

Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada; Asmunn

Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway;

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia;

John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia; Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc.,

Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological

Group, Ottawa, Canada; Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology,

University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of

Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the

Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief -

Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force; R.G. Roper, PhD,

Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,

Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.; Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor,

Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest

microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.,

Canada; Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA,

U.S.; L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of

Western Ontario, Canada; Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research

Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of

Technology), Stockholm, Sweden; Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy,

Melbourne, Australia; Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology

Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and

Economics Berlin, Germany; and Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine

Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia. Also, "Other professional

persons knowledgeable about climate change who expressed support for the open letter to

the UN Secretary General" included meteorological researcher and spotter for the National

Weather Service Allan Cortese; Water resources engineer Don Farley; Dr. David A.

187

Gray of Messiah College, a former researcher in electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere;

Barrie Jackson, associate professor of Chemical Engineering at Queen's University,

Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Raymond J. Jones, PhD, FATSE, OAM. retired, Agronomist,

Townsville, Australia; J.A.L. Robertson, M.A. (Cantab.), F.R.S.C., nuclear-energy

consultant, Deep River, ON, Canada; J.T.Rogers, PhD, FCAE, nuclear engineer; energy

analyst, Ottawa, Canada; John K. Sutherland, PhD in Geology (Manchester University),

New Brunswick, Canada; Noor van Andel, PhD Energy Physics, Burgemeester

Stroinkstraat, The Netherlands; Arthur M. Patterson, P.Eng, Geological Engineer.

Extensive experience in the Canadian Arctic; Agronomist Pat Palmer of New Zealand;

and Alois Haas emeritus Prof. PhD, nuclear chemistry; Michael Limburg, Engineer,

deputy press-speaker of Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie ( EIKE - European

Institute for Climate & Energy), Grob Glienicke, Germany; Dietrich von Saldern, PhD.,

Diplom Ingenieur, Assessor des Bergfachs, Mining Engineer, Germany; Tom Harris, B.

Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids), Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project,

Ottawa, Canada. (LINK) & (LINK) (See attachment one for full text of letter and

complete list of signatories at end of this report.)

Dutch Geologist Dr. Chris Schoneveld, a retired exploration geophysicist, has become

an outspoken skeptic regarding the human influence on climate over the past four

years. "If global warming is just a consequence of natural climatic fluctuations similar to

well-documented, geologically caused climate changes, wouldn't we rather adapt to a

warming world than to spend trillions of dollars on a futile exercise to contain carbon

dioxide emissions?" Schoneveld wrote in the October 1, 2007 International Herald

Tribune. "As long as the causes of the many climate changes throughout the Earth's history

are not well understood, one cannot unequivocally separate natural causes from possibly

man-made ones. The so-called scientific consensus discourages healthy debate between

believers in global warming and skeptics. There has never been a UN-organized conference

on climate change where skeptics were invited for the sake of balance to present their

case," he explained. (LINK) Schoneveld also critiqued the UN IPCC process on February

3, 2007. "Who are the geologists that the IPCC is relying on? Is the IPCC at all concerned

about the frequency and recurrence of ice ages? Who are the astronomers that advise the

IPCC on other cause of possible climate change (sun spots or earth's elliptical orbit, tilt and

wobble of its axis) so as to ascertain that we are not just experiencing a normal trend

related to interglacial warming or variation in solar radiation?" he asked. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development

of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands'

Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in

atmospheric boundary layer processes, took climate modelers to task for their

projections of future planetary doom in a February 28, 2007 post on Climate Science. "I am

of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of

climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to

sell their products to society. In all regular engineering professions, there exists a licensing

authority. If such an authority existed in climate research, I contend, the vast majority of

climate modelers would vainly attempt certification. Also, they would be unable to obtain

insurance against professional liability," Tennekes said. (LINK) Tennekes also unleashed

on the promoters of climate fears in a January 31, 2007 article. "I worry about the

arrogance of scientists who claim they can help solve the climate problem, provided their

188

research receives massive increases in funding", he wrote. "I am angry about the Climate

Doomsday hype that politicians and scientists engage in. I am angry at Al Gore, I am angry

at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for resetting its Doomsday clock, I am angry at Lord

Martin Rees for using the full weight of the Royal Society in support of the Doomsday

hype, I am angry at Paul Crutzen for his speculations about yet another technological fix, I

am angry at the staff of IPCC for their preoccupation with carbon dioxide emissions, and I

am angry at Jim Hansen for his efforts to sell a Greenland Ice Sheet Meltdown

Catastrophe," he explained. (LINK) Tennekes has also blasted Gore and the UN in the

Dutch De Volskrant newspaper on March 28, 2007. "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore

is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without

merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home

heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired

temperature will soon be reached. We cannot run the climate as we wish," Tennekes said.

"Whatever the IPCC staff thinks, it is not at all inconceivable that decreasing solar activity

will lead to some cooling ten years from now," he concluded. (LINK)

Chemical engineer Thomas Ring has authored several scientific papers for Oil and

Gas Journal and is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Ring,

who has a degree from Case Western Reserve University and is licensed in the state of

California, declared "we should not fear global warming" in 2007. "Warming of the Earth

has never been catastrophic; in fact, humankind has always fared better in warmer than

cooler periods, with less hardship and illness and improved agriculture," Ring wrote on

November 28, 2007. Ring called for "solid, objective and unbiased research, rather than

fear-mongering based on a nonscientific ‗consensus.'" "What's responsible for prior periods

of warmth in 600 BC, 1000 and 1912 to 1943, all when there was no or little man-made

CO2? It's most likely the sun, whose radiation varies to the fourth power of its

temperature," he wrote. "Atmospheric water vapor is, however, 0.9 percent, 25 times as

much as CO2. Water vapor is a 'radiator' that is three times more powerful than CO2, but

its larger effect has been ignored in the global warming debate," he concluded. (LINK)

Harvard-educated Physicist Arthur E. Lemay, a renowned computer systems

specialist, declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Recent studies show that there are

far better explanations for the earth's warming before 1998. The variations in the sun's

radiant energy and production of cosmic rays are far more persuasive than the greenhouse

gas theory," Lemay wrote on December 5, 2007 in the Jakarta Post during the UN Climate

Conference in Bali. "The solar theory explains it, the greenhouse gas theory does not. In

science, when observations do not support a theory, it is the theory which needs to be

discarded. So, all this blather about reducing CO2, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali

conference are all a waste of money," Lemay explained. "Of course, the global warming

alarmists cannot tolerate the solar theory because we cannot do anything about it, and no

government wants to spend billions of dollars for nothing," he wrote. "It's time for

Indonesia and other developing countries to demand an explanation as to why CO2

reduction is being mandated when it is not the problem," he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist and French Socialist who has

authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books, and received numerous

scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the

United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of

189

the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of

climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of

being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a

very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point

to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical

meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006

article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled

Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting, "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The

author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer

from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate

disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" and mocks "the greenhouse-gas

fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without

doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become

dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had

previously expressed concern about man-made global warming. "By burning fossil fuels,

man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the

global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago.

In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter

titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global

warming's "potential risks are very great." Allegre mocked former Vice President Al

Gore's Nobel Prize in 2007, calling it "a political gimmick." Allegre said on October 14,

2007, "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics; it's designed to intervene

in American politics. It's scandalous." (LINK)

Astrophysicist Dr. Howard Greyber, a Fellow Royal Astronomical Society and

member of the International Astronomical Union, called warming fears "unwarranted

hysteria" and chastised a newspaper columnist's views on global warming. "When

[columnist] Thomas Friedman touts carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming in his

column, I respond as a physicist that he cannot comprehend that it is still not proven that

carbon dioxide emissions actually are causing global warming. Correlation does not prove

Causation," Greyber wrote on September 20, 2007 in the International Herald Tribune.

"The Earth's climate changes all the time. Did carbon dioxide emissions cause the Medieval

Warm Period, when Vikings raised crops on Greenland's coast? What caused the cold

climate from 1700 to 1850? In 1975, articles were published predicting we were entering a

New Ice Age. Reputable scientists oppose this unwarranted alarmist hysteria," he noted.

"Understanding climate change is an extremely difficult scientific problem. Giant

computers generating climate models cannot be trusted so far. As any computer person

knows, garbage in means garbage out. If research suggests subtle variations in our Sun's

radiation reaching Earth are causing global climate change, what would Friedman

recommend?" Greyber concluded. (LINK)

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top, young, award-winning scientists of

the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recanted his belief that man-made emissions were

driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad

culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I

realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate

scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets

the eye," Shaviv said in a February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to

190

Shaviv, the CO2 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar

activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that

[the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted, pointing to the impact cosmic- rays

have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a

doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global

temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be,

say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction

in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv

explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2

should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic

temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he

slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting

to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think

this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary

climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there,

each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic

Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote.

Research physicist Dr. John W. Brosnahan develops remote-sensing instruments for

atmospheric science for such clients as NOAA and NASA and has published

numerous peer-reviewed research, as well as developed imaging Doppler

interferometry for sensing winds, waves, and structure in the atmosphere. "Of course

I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes

that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical

variations in solar output," Brosnahan wrote to EPW on December 10, 2007. "I have not

seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of

the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might

be the case," Brosnahan explained. "Even though these computer climate models do not

properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a

temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.

While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any

major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate

and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst," he

concluded.

Mathematician & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the

Australian Government and is head of the group "Science Speak," recently detailed his

conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the

Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming

seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon

emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog.

"But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better

temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence

that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said,

‗When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted

how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed

money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the

191

idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but

there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage

in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused

global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international

conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big

budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were

working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of

evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data

was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature

increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were not initially caused by

rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This

piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past

warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added.

"Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of

global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more

entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the

moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global

warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans

bio link )

Yury Zaitsev, an analyst with Russia's Institute of Space Studies, rejected man-made

global warming fears in 2007. "Paleoclimate research shows that the chillier periods of the

Earth's history have always given way to warmer times, and vice versa. But it is not quite

clear what causes this change," Zaitsev wrote on September 28, 2007 in the Russian

publication RIA Novosti. "Yury Leonov, director of the Institute of Geology at the

Russian Academy of Sciences, thinks that the human impact on nature is so small that it

can be dismissed as a statistical mistake," Zaitsev explained. "Until quite recently, experts

primarily attributed global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, with carbon dioxide

singled out as the chief culprit. But it transpires that water vapor is just as bad," he wrote.

"Sun-related phenomena have fairly regular and predictable consequences on the Earth. Of

course, they exert influence on humans and other species and, to some extent, on the

environment, altering atmospheric pressure and temperature. But they are not likely to

contribute much to climate change. This is a global process and is the result of global

causes. For the time being, we are far from understanding them fully," he added. (LINK)

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries

and Oceans in Canada and former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and

professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, reversed himself from believer in man-

made climate change to a skeptic. "I started with a firm belief about global warming, until

I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the

other side in the early 1990s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a

position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty

was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto

to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-

1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not

exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

192

French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at University of Jean

Moulin and former director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and

Environment (CNRS) in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled

Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Hardly a week

goes by without some new scoop ... filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers,"

Leroux wrote in his book. The media promotes the view that "global warming caused by

the greenhouse effect is our fault, just like everything else, and the

message/slogan/misinformation becomes even more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be

simpler: if the rain falls or draught strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all;

whether it's heat or hard frost; it's all because of the greenhouse effect, and we are to blame.

An easy argument, but stupid!" he explained. "The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just

as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our

schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra - that ‗the Earth is

warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‗the ice melts' and ‗sea level rises,' the

Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the

average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-

believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the

existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!" he wrote.

"The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on

the paleoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the

greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence

being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to

unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution.

Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropogenic factor, which is, clearly, the least

credible among all those previously mentioned," he added. (LINK) (Leroux died in August

2008)

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland, N.Z., also

converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted

that increases in human-caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere

would trigger changes in water vapor, etc. and lead to dangerous ‗global warming,' but with

time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good

story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation,"

de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the

risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of

evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars

committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better

spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor

sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens

of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. De Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who

wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister

Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made

since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern

about increasing greenhouse gases." (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Gerhard Kramm of the Geophysical Institute at the

University of Alaska Fairbanks expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The IPCC would

never be awarded by the Nobel Prize in Physics because most of the statements of the

193

IPCC can be assessed as physical misunderstanding and physical misinterpretations,"

Kramm wrote in a letter to the Associated Press on October 21, 2007. "There is no

scientific certainty, even though the Associated Press distributes this message always every

day," Kramm wrote in his letter, criticizing the news outlet. "The change in the radiative

forcing components since the beginning of the industrial era is so small (2 W/m^2,

according to the IPCC 2007) that we have no pyrgeometers (radiometers to measure the

infrared radiometer emitted by the earth and the atmosphere) which are able to provide any

empirical evidence of such a small change because their degrees of accuracy are too less,"

he wrote. "By far, most of [the IPCC] members can be considered, indeed, as members of a

Church of Global Warming. They are not qualified enough to understand the physics

behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models (see, for

instance, the poor publication record of Dr. [RK] Pachauri, the current Chairman of the

IPCC). However, in science it would be highly awkward to vote which results are correct

and which are wrong," he added. "A decrease of the anthropogenic CO2 emission to the

values below of those of 1990 would not decrease the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This

concentration would increase further, however the increase would be lowering. As

illustrated in Slide 38, it might be that the atmospheric CO2 concentration tends to an

equilibrium concentration of somewhat higher than 500 ppmv. Here, equilibrium means

that the increase of natural and anthropogenic CO2 emission is equaled by the uptake of

CO2 by vegetation and ocean," he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Geologist Georgia D. Brown, an instructor of Geology & Oceanography at College of

Lake County in Illinois, who co-authored a 1993 peer-reviewed study on the CO2

content in the magma from Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii in the prestigious journal

American Mineralogist, rejected climate fears and supported the notion of a coming

global cool down. "I talk to my students about this topic every semester, not just when we

are covering glacial geology, but at different points throughout the term. I want them to

know that they shouldn't take every alarmist claim at face value," Brown wrote on

December 13, 2006. "Fear is a means of controlling a population, and since the cold war

has ended, the government needed new fuel for its control fire," Brown wrote. Brown, who

said she "spent quite a bit of time doing research in climatology, and what triggers the ice

age cycle" explained that "it is a slight increase in temperature, and the resulting increase in

precipitation, that triggers ice sheet growth.....And have you read about the 30% decrease in

the North Atlantic Current? What happens to Greenland, Iceland, The British Isles, and

Europe as a result? It gets damn cold!" (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford

and former Chair of the New England Section of the American Physical Society, has

authored peer-reviewed research articles and given numerous talks nationally and

internationally. Gould, who has made an intensive study of climate change, challenged

climate fears in 2007. "There is (I have found) a huge problem in getting to learn of both

sides of the AGW debate. But this ‗debate' needs to be aired, regardless of what is being

presented to scientists and to the public as the ‗truth' about AGW," Gould wrote in a

September 20, 2007 editorial titled "Global Warming from a Critical Perspective."

"Although I have seen many articles arguing for the reality and danger of anthropogenic

greenhouse warming (AGW), I have rarely seen one that presents scientific arguments

against the AGW claims," Gould wrote. "The implication [by many in the media] seems to

be that anyone who has a contrary argument is not ‗respectable' - yet there are many

194

leading climatologists (such as Richard Lindzen of MIT) who have very good arguments

disagreeing," Gould wrote. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Russian scientist Alexander G. Egorov, a researcher with the Arctic and Antarctic

Research Institute in Saint Petersburg, called global warming a temporary

inconvenience tied to the natural fluctuation of the sun. According to an October 18, 2007

translated article in Russian Science News, Egorov believes warming is "not more than a

natural variation." The article explained that Egorov believes "long-term temperature rising

to be just an episode of global history, a consequence of natural fluctuations, which depend

on changes in solar activity and surface air pressure. The scientist has analyzed data of

monthly average values of surface air pressure between November and April 1923-2005 in

cellular mesh points, located northwards from 40th parallel of the northern hemisphere."

The article concluded, "If pressure over Atlantic drops, then speed of warm water transfer

grows, like in 1920-1940s, when warming was detected in the Arctic. During the 22nd

solar cycle, which started in 1986, the pressure over vast territories of the northern

hemisphere, including Canada, Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, Eastern Europe, Eastern and

Western Siberia, dropped significantly. This stage of natural fluctuations concurs with

current climate state, which is usually called the global warming. However, in the next

solar cycle the pressure over the Northern Atlantic may change, causing the end of global

warming." (LINK)

One of the "Fathers of Meteorology," Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the

Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of

the 1970s (See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see

Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a

leading global warming skeptic. On February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky

is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson was on the United Nations Global 500

Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most

frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any

difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate

was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All

this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has

gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out

of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson

said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,"

he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of

‗greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The

aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my

knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic

modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it

has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,"

Bryson explained in 2005. Bryson also signed the December 13, 2007 open letter to the UN

dissenting on man-made climate fears. (LINK) (Bryson died in June 2008 (LINK) (LINK)

UN IPCC reviewer, global warming author, and economist Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, a

lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global

warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.

195

Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as an anthropogenic global warming

believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of

prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohm explained. Labohm co-

authored the 2004 book Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma with

Eindhoven University of Technology emeritus professor of chemical engineer Dick

Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal

of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "‗Climate

change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public

that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is

justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact

still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‗noise.'"

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at

Carleton University in Ottawa converted from believer in CO2's driving the climate

change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate

change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened

following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE

Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6

years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and

Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle

investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched

allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find

that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to

various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to

publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control

climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant

money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists

want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to

climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there,

there's lots of discussion [about climate change]. I was at the Geological Society of

America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion

were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007.

Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warming of the Earth, ridiculed

the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to

[Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its

tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it

isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview

on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof

favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what [media and governments]

are saying, [is] we're about three quarters of the way [to disaster] with the doubling of CO2

in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's

not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in

Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form

of global cooling in the 1970s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions

196

of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in

man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial

pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr.

Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political

correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high

altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2

studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with

a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and

questioned what the actual level of CO2 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report

in EIR Science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find

ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its

repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global

economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2

levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2

measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck

2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were

wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the

techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany,

hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these

measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as

perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in

vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice

Age, seems now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the

science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that

cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one

of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "It may be many years yet

before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant

advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us

away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

A group of German scientists of "several scientific disciplines" formed a new group in

2007 to declare themselves climate change skeptics. The group of scientists issued a

proclamation on September 15, 2007 titled "The Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth." The

group, which included prominent scientist Ernst-George Beck who authored a

groundbreaking February 2007 paper, entitled "180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by

Chemical Methods," (LINK) publicly issued six basic points of skepticism about man-

made global warming. They stated that their "motivation was to initiate processes against

daily campaigns of media and politics concerning climate." Their six points are: 1) "There

is not proven influence on climate by man made emission of CO2; 2) Scenarios on future

climate change derived from computer models are speculative and contradicted by climate

history; 3) There has been climate change in all times of Earth history with alternating cold

and warm phases; 4) The trace gas CO2 dos not pollute the atmosphere, CO2 is an essential

resource for plant growth and therefore a precondition for life on Earth; 5) We are

committing ourselves to an effective preservation of our environment and support

arrangements to prevent unnecessary stress on eco systems; and 6) We strongly warn

against taking action using imminent climate catastrophe as a vehicle which will not be

beneficial for our environment and will cause economic damage." The declaration was

197

signed by the following scientists: Biologist Ernst-Georg Beck; Engineer and energy

expert Paul Bossert; Biologist Branford Helgo; Hydro biologist Edgar Gardeners

(Gärtner); Agricultural scientist Dr. Rainer Six; Engineer Heinze Thieme. Physics

Professor Hubert Becker; Rikard Bergsten Master of Science in Physics and

Computer Engineering; Professor of physics Dr. Ludecke Horst-Joachim; Peter

Martin, Professor of Engineering; Engineer Martin Bock; Chemical and

environmental engineer Donald Clauson; Physicist Dr. Theo Eichten; Biochemist

Flick Hendrikje; Agricultural scientist Dr. Glatzle Albrecht; Chemist Dr. Hauck

Guenther; Professor of environmental and climate physics Dr. Detlef Hebert;

Astrophysicist Dr Peter Heller; Chemist Dr. Albert Krause; Forestry scientist Dr.

Christoph Leinb: Chemist Dr. Hans Penner; Mathematician Dr. Paul Matthews;

Chemist Dr. Wuntke Knut; Meteorologist Klaus-pulse Eckart. Others who signed the

declaration included: Dr. Herbert Backhaus; Dieter Ber; Gunter Ederer; Ferdinand Furst zu

Hohenlohe-Bartenstein; Dieter Kramer; Uwe Tempel; Brigitte Bossert; Nikolaus Lentz;

Werner Vermess Eisenkopf; Wilfried Heck; Heinz Hofman; Rainer Hoffman; and Werner

Eisenkopf. (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at

University of Ottawa, who has been involved with the International Atomic Energy

Agency and co-authored the book Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, which won

the Choice Magazine "Outstanding Textbook" award in 1998, reversed his views on

man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these

dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in

temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of CO2. The association

seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a

climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary Climate Catastrophe Cancelled:

What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change. "However, a few years

ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no

evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural

causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on

the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers

also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added.

Prominent scientist Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea

levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics &

Geodynamics at Stockholm University, declared in 2007 "the rapid rise in sea levels

predicted by computer models simply cannot happen." Morner called a September 23, 2007

AP article predicting dire sea level rise "propaganda." "The AP article must be regarded as

an untenable horror scenario not based in observational facts," Morner wrote to EPW. "Sea

level will not rise by 1 m in 100 years. This is not even possible. Storm surges are in no

way intensified at a sea level rise. Sea level was not at all rising 'a third of a meter in the

last century': only some 10 cm from 1850 to 1940," he wrote. Morner previously noted on

August 6, 2007, "When we were coming out of the last ice age, huge ice sheets were

melting rapidly and the sea level rose at an average of one meter per century. If the

Greenland ice sheet stated to melt at the same rate - which is unlikely - sea level would rise

by less than 100 mm - 4 inches per century." Morner, who was president of the INQUA

Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003, has

198

published a new booklet entitled "The Greatest Lie Ever Told," to refute claims of

catastrophic sea level rise. (LINK) & (LINK)

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of

Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate

history. "I simply accepted the [global warming] theory as given," Veizer wrote on April

30, 2007 about predictions that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate

catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray

connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did

the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on

geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations.

Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the

assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly

favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer

acknowledged the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate

modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it

underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable

source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to

drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models,

arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‗positive water vapor

feedback')," Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed.

This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,"

he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy

equivalent (model language ‗prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate)

would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is

coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it

can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy

input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote.

German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist, authored a February 2007 paper

entitled 180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by Chemical Methods that found

levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were not measured correctly possibly due to the fact

that they measurements did not fit with hypothesis of man-made global warming. The

abstract to the paper published in Energy and Environment reads in part, ""More than

90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarized. The historic

chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore

climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-

1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern

hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and

1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm." The paper concluded: "Most authors and

sources have summarized the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods

incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were

unreliable and produced poor quality results." [Note: Beck died in 2010] (LINK)

Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton

School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague, forecasting

expert Dr. Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia challenged Gore to a

$10,000 bet in June 2007 over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions.

199

"Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get

colder." According to Armstrong, the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most

frequently cited book on forecasting methods, "Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN]

IPCC violated 72." Armstrong and Green also critiqued the Associated Press for hyping

climate fears in 2007. "Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of

the Earth in coming decades of the 21st century. Enormous sea level rise is one of the more

dramatic forecasts. According to the AP's Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts'

judgments on what will happen," Armstrong and Green wrote to EPW on September 23,

2007. "As shown in our analysis, experts' forecasts have no validity in situations

characterized by high complexity, high uncertainty, and poor feedback. To date we are

unaware of any forecasts of sea levels that adhere to proper [scientific] forecasting

methodology and our quick search on Google Scholar came up short," Armstrong and

Green explained. "Media outlets should be clear when they are reporting on scientific work

and when they are reporting on the opinions held by some scientists. Without scientific

support for their forecasting methods, the concerns of scientists should not be used as a

basis for public policy," they concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) Armstrong and Green also

co-authored a November 29, 2007 paper with Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon

which found that polar bear extinction predictions violate "scientific forecasting

procedures." The study analyzed the methodology behind key polar bear population

predictions and found that one of the two key reports in support of listing the bears had

"extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data - and data

for these years were of doubtful validity." Both key reports violated critical evidence-based

principles of forecasting, rendering their forecasts invalid, according to the report. The

study concluded that "experts' predictions, unaided by evidence-based forecasting

procedures, should play no role in this decision [to list polar bear as endangered]. Without

scientific forecasts of a substantial decline of the polar bear population and of net benefits

from feasible policies arising from listing polar bears, a decision to list polar bears as

threatened or endangered would be irresponsible." (LINK)

UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London ridiculed the notion of a scientific "consensus" on catastrophic man-made global warming.

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believed in eugenics. Science does not

progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts,"

Stott said on March 14, 2007 during a live debate with other scientists in New York City.

"And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits

that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let's use an

engineer; I don't think I'd want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who

only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge," Stott said. He noted how ridiculous

political leaders act when it comes to global warming." Angela Merkel, the German

chancellor, [and] my own good Prime Minister (UK's Tony Blair), for whom I voted -- let

me emphasize -- arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in ‗Annie get the gun style'

could produce the best temperature. ‗I could do two degrees C said Angela [Merkel].' ‗No,

I could only do three [degrees] said Tony [Blair].' Stand back a minute, those are

politicians telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius," Stott said. (LINK)

Swedish Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of

Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the

Associated Press for hyping climate fears. "Another of these hysterical views of our

200

climate," Karlen wrote to EPW regarding the September 22, 2007 AP article predicting dire

sea level rise. "Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons,

particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on

climate," Karlen explained. "I have used the NASA temperature data for a study of several

major areas. As far as I can see the IPCC "Global Temperature" is wrong. Temperature is

fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s," Karlen wrote.

"The latest estimates of sea level rise are 1.31 mm/year. With this water level increase it

will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by 1 m if not conditions

change before that (very likely). Society will look very different at that time," he added.

(LINK)

Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member who left the

environmental organization because he believed it had become too radical, rejected

climate alarmism and lamented the efforts to silence climate skeptics. "It appears to be the

policy of the [UK] Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts

about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind or repression

seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body," Moore,

the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in a September 21, 2006 letter to the Royal Society

accusing it of attempting to silence skeptics. "I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the

difference between a hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced

CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present

global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven

theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way," Moore wrote.

(LINK)

Paavo Siitam, a retired professor of chemistry, agronomy, biology, and physics, and a

researcher in soils and microbiology, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate

fears in 2007. "Despite some doom and gloom predictions, excluding waves washing onto

shores by relatively rarely occurring tsunamis and storm-surges, low-lying areas on the face

of our planet have NOT yet been submerged by rising oceans... so probably low-lying areas

along shorelines of Canada and the USA will be SAFE into foreseeable and even distant

futures," Siitam wrote to EPW on September 22, 2007 regarding an AP article predicting

dire sea level rise. "By the way, I'd be happy to buy prized oceanfront properties at bargain

prices, anywhere in the world, when unwarranted, panic selling begins. The dire

predictions will not come true this century," he added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Grant Dade of Texas TV's KLTV, a member of both the American

Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, dismissed man-made

climate fears in 2007. "I think it is about time we see the other side of the Global Warming

debate come out," Dade said on November 8, 2007. "Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it

is. But is man causing that? No. It's a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over

thousands of years." Dade critiqued the media for hyping climate fears while ignoring

inconvenient facts. "Did you hear about the Arctic ice melting? But you didn't hear in

Antarctica last winter was the most ice ever recorded," Dade said. "You don't hear that,"

he added. (LINK) & Click to watch video: (LINK)

Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine declared his climate

skepticism in 2007. "Long-term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural

201

and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for

another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about

1 foot of rise during the next two centuries," Robinson wrote to EPW on September 23,

2007. "There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be

more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be

significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data.

There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows," he added. (LINK)

Canadian Geologist Albert F. Jacobs, co-founder of the group Friends of Science,

critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007. "Basic to the IPCC case for

sea level rise and for the alarmists' hype is the hypothesis that increasing levels of carbon

dioxide will cause increasing amounts of global warming. It should be stressed that this

assumption of truth is no more than a hypothesis, which is increasingly being attacked and

on which any meaningful discussion has been thwarted by the IPCC's political masters,"

Jacobs wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "As far as CO2 is concerned, basic physics

has always been clear about the limitations of higher concentrations of gas to absorb

equivalent amounts of heat radiation. ‗Doubling of CO2' does none of the things the IPCC's

computer says it does. And that's all separate from the fact that water vapour is a much

greater ‗greenhouse' driver than carbon dioxide in any case," Jacobs added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Chuck F. Wiese, the president of the Portland Oregon based

Weatherwise, Inc., lambasted "fancy computer models that can be manipulated" and "are

absolutely incorrect and fraudulent." Wiese called computer model predictions of climate

doom a "bunch of baloney." "The physics of this is in support of anyone who is a skeptic.

As I have said, C02 is of secondary importance; anything that we did to reduce C02

emissions is going to make no change in my opinion that you could really measure in the

climate response at all, because other things are going on that just overpower the small

contribution you get from C02, it does not make a dog's bit of difference," Wiese said in a

January 18, 2007 radio interview. (LINK)

American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) Joel Schwartz, who holds a master's degree in

planetary science from the California Institute of Technology, touted a significant 2007

peer-reviewed study as "overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus' in one fell swoop." "New

research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth's

climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes," wrote AEI's Schwartz in an

August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK) The study's "result is 63% lower than the IPCC's

estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0-4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now

we're about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current

rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on

Schwartz's results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in

temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn't seem

particularly alarming," AEI's Schwartz explained. "In other words, there's hardly any

additional warming ‗in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in

contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an

additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations

stopped increasing," he added. "Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific

literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly

202

alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone

would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific ‗consensus', the

environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction

policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected

officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"

AEI's Schwartz concluded.

Chemist Dr. Franco Battaglia, a professor of Environmental Chemistry at the

University of Modena in Italy and co-author of a book critical of the modern

environmental movement titled Green Outside, Red Inside: Deception of

Environmentalists. The book was co-authored with Dr. Renato Angelo Ricci, emeritus

professor of physics at the University of Padua and honorary president of the Italian

Society of Physics. Battaglia dismissed man-made global warming fears as "trivial."

Battaglia mocked that notion that we live in "a world where the colorless, odorless, taste,

harmless CO2, food plants and therefore our food was at the same rank of radioactive

waste." "A world where a trivial global warming is currently less than what [Viking] Erik

the Red faced when he colonized Greenland" during the Medieval Warm Period," Battaglia

wrote on September 2, 2007 in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale. "Our energy needs put

CO2 into the atmosphere (at least until we decide to produce at 100% over nuclear), he

explained. Battaglia also referred to the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid." (translated) (LINK)

* Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal

Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a

decisive role of CO2 in global warming. The press release about the study read, "CO2 is

not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a

comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be

published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the

earth." "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it," Luc

Debontridder said according to the August 2007 release. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the

most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect.

This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody

seems to take note of it," Debontridder explained. "Every change in weather conditions is

blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to

the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added.

(LINK) [ Note: Though Debontridder dampened climate fears with such quotes as

“There's no need either to needlessly frighten the public. Bruges will not be on the

coastline by 2050,” he reportedly claims he was not translated correctly in media reports

from 2007 and his climate views were incorrectly reported. (LINK) ]

Australian climate data analyst John McLean authored a September 2007 study

which found the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A September 2007

analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review

process entitled "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" revealed very few scientists are

actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to McLean's analysis, "The

IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of

scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer

comments show a very different and disturbing story." The paper continued, "In [the

IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely

203

that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming

over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much

supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit

support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed

the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover,

only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis

concluded, "The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific

papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly

influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-

perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process." (LINK) [12-24-2007 -

Clarified description of McLean]

Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg,

who earned his PhD from the University of London, called fears of man-made global

warming "the greatest deception in the history of science" in a February 5, 2007 op-ed in

Canada Free Press. "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This, in fact, is the greatest deception in the history of science. We

are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and

consternation over an issue with no scientific justification," Ball wrote. "The world has

warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has

generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability

and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on,"

Ball explained. "As [MIT's Richard] Lindzen said many years ago, ‗the consensus was

reached before the research had even begun.' Now, any scientist who dares to question the

prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they are simply being

good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called

climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal

scientific method is effectively being thwarted," Ball concluded. Ball also explained that

one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming

effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2‘s warming impact diminishes.

―Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal.

The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block

sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little

more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,‖ Ball explained in a June 6,

2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

Climate data analyst Stephen McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org, one of the individuals

responsible for debunking the infamous "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, exposed

a NASA temperature data error in 2007 which led to 1934 -- not the previously hyped

1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised NASA

temperature data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's

while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. [Note: 80% of man-made

CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ] "NASA has yet to own up fully to its

historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global

Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org," reported an

August 17, 2007 article in American Thinker. (LINK) McIntyre has also harshly critiqued

the UN IPCC process. "So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of

the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working

204

Group 1 report) is to enable them to make any ‗necessary' adjustments to the technical

report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities

commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the

promoters made the ‗necessary' adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial

statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me," McIntyre explained

January 2007. (LINK)

A Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Rejected Man-Made Global Warming Fears in

2007 - Claimed 95% of TV Meteorologists Skeptical. "You tell me you're going to

predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that's 6 billion years old?"

Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. Johnson dismissed the 2007 UN IPCC summary for

policymakers, "Consensus does not mean fact. ... Don't drink the Kool-Aid." Meteorologist

Mark Nolan said, "I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global

warming] or that we can fix it." Johnson and Nolan were joined on the panel by fellow

Ohio meteorologists Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, and John Loufman in dismissing

fears of global warming, according to Crain's Cleveland publication on February 13, 2007.

"Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‗about 95%'

share his skepticism about global warming," the paper reported. Goddard noted that

scientists have flip-flopped on climate issues before. "I have a file an inch thick from 30

years ago that says the planet was cooling," Goddard explained. Webster jokingly

referenced former Vice President Gore. "Where's Al Gore now? You can bet he's not in

New York, where they've got nearly 12 feet of snow right now," Webster joked to the

crowd of several hundred.

Polar expert Ivan Frolov, the head of Russia's Science and Research Institute of

Arctic and Antarctic Regions, said atmospheric temperature would have to much higher

to make continental glaciers melt. "Many hundred years or 20-30 degree temperature rise

would have made glaciers melt," Frolov said in a December 14, 2006 Russian news article.

(LINK) Frolov noted that currently Greenland's and Antarctic glaciers have the tendency to

grow. The article explained, "Frolov says cooling and warming periods are common for

our planet - temperature fluctuations amounted to 10-12 degrees. However, such

fluctuations haven't caused glaciers to melt. Thus, we shouldn't be afraid they melt today."

Atmospheric scientist Dr. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric

Science at Colorado State University, an internationally respected expert in the

aerosol effects on weather and climate, called claims that man-made global warming was

causing any recent abnormal weather an "abuse of limited scientific knowledge." Cotton,

who has been extensively cited in the peer reviewed literature, rejected global warming

alarmism on October 17, 2006 in Climate Science. "Climate variability has been with Earth

for eons. Greenhouse warming is only one factor affecting climate change. There are many

other factors some associated with human activity, many not, and not all processes

associated with climate variability have been quantitatively identified," Cotton said.

"Therefore I am skeptical about claims of forecasts of what the climate will be like in say,

5, 10 years or more. I also view claims that a few years of abnormal weather (like intense

hurricane landfalls, severe storms and floods, and droughts) to be caused by human activity

as abuse of limited scientific knowledge." (LINK)

205

Bernie Rayno, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather, said in February 2007, "Our

climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link

global warming to greenhouse gases." "We as humans thought we were causing a cooling

cycle," Rayno said, referring to the fears of a coming ice age in the 1970s. "It's interesting

to watch the media flip back and forth on this," he added.

VK Raina, India's leading Glaciologist, questioned the assertion that global warming

was melting glaciers in India. "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the

Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times on February

11, 2007. The paper continued, "Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers

in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has

shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It is simple. The issue

of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina

claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare

before drawing a conclusion." (LINK)

IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist

with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in

climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100

papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling,

slammed the UN IPCC process. "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments

and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD

(Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the

chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with

whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review.

This is not an acceptable scientific review process," Khandekar wrote in a May 28, 2007

letter to the editor of Canada's The Hill Times. "...Adherents of the IPCC science like to

insist that the debate over climate change science is over and it is now time for action. I

urge [those IPCC supporters] to browse through recent issues of major international

journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper

being published questioning the science," Khandekar added. "The science of climate

change is continuously evolving. The IPCC and its authors have closed their minds and

eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the prime driver of earth's

climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases," he concluded. (LINK) Khandekar

also further critiqued the UN's IPCC process in a February 13, 2007 interview in the

Winnipeg Sun. "I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic," he explained. "IPCC

scientists did not thoroughly analyze why the Earth's surface temperature -- land and ocean

combined -- has increased only modestly in the past 30 years," Khandekar said. "We have

not fully explored why the climate changes from one state to another. It is too premature to

say," he concluded. (LINK) Khandekar also wrote an August 6, 2007 commentary

explaining that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. "In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-

area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of

Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the

last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its

coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have

experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures

over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide

analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)

206

Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV affiliate

declared that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-

made global warming hype." "I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I

know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country," Spann, who

holds the highest level of certification from the American Meteorological Society, wrote in

a January 18, 2007 blog post. "I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into

the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find

them," Spann added. "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of

those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the

money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money

trail and it tells a story... Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money

becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many,

global warming is a big cash grab," Spann said. "[The climate] will always change, and the

warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s

and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered

most of North America and Northern Europe," he noted.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Space Research for the Pulkovo Observatory in

Russia, pointed to global warming on Mars and the melting ice cap on the red planet as

more evidence that the sun was a key driver of climate change. "Mars has global warming,

but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," Abdussamatov said in

an interview on January 26, 2007 with Canada's National Post. "These parallel global

warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straight-line

consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance,"

Abdussamatov explained. "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's

oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in

global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations,"

Abdussamatov added. A predicted decline in solar irradiance is going to lead to global

cooling by 2015 and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60," according to

Abdussamatov. Abdussamatov was also featured in a February 28, 2007 article in National

Geographic titled "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist

Says," where he reiterated his scientific findings that "man-made greenhouse warming has

made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot

compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

French physicist Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of

Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique,

expressed man-made global warming skepticism in 2007. "The human cause of global

warming is the subject of a consensus of scientists and experts, but not a diagnosis

indisputable," Galam wrote in a February 7, 2007 article in Le Monde titled "No Scientific

Certainty on Climate." "The world, our planet, is showing signs of changing its undeniable

natural cycles, which also shape the course of all life forms currently on the Earth. These

changes are clearly visible, but remain limited for the time being," Galam explained. He

also compared man-made climate fears to ancient pagan fears of nature. "Throughout the

history, our ancestors were persuaded that the forces of nature obeyed the gods, and that

these was the mistakes which involved their ires, which appeared then by natural

disordered states. During very a long time, one believed to be able to stop them by human

207

and animal sacrifices. Science taught us that that was not founded, and here that this old

antiquated belief re-appears with a found vitality, and who in more is pressed on the

scientists in the name of science," he explained. (translated) (LINK)

James Woudhuysen, a professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort

University in Britain, critiqued the environmental movement from a liberal perspective.

"Science seems to have become the Great Dictator, and no dissent can be allowed. We refer

to this as the New Scientism. We call it new to distinguish it from the old sort - the sort

that, ironically enough, was organised by US imperialism in the Cold War," Woudhuysen

wrote on February 5, 2007. "As with the original Cold War scientism, the New Scientism

perverts objective science towards questionable political ends," he wrote. "Ironically,

greens now rehabilitate the Cold War scientism of RAND, which they affect to hate so

much, so as to legitimise not the Cold War, but today's war on personal behaviour - the war

to colonise people's minds, make them internalise green mores, and make them spend all

their time buying (and repairing) windmills, sorting their rubbish, and turning off their

consumer electronics equipment. Instead of rationing access to fallout shelters, David

Miliband wants a nationwide scheme to ration carbon," he added. Woudhuysen also

mocked the UN IPCC's claims of "consensus." "Some have used the IPCC summary to

assert that the debate on climate change is over. In part, this stems from the proclamations

of the IPCC itself and its supporters. For example, Achim Steiner said that 2 February, the

day the summary was published, would be ‗remembered as the day the question mark was

removed'. Anyone interested in genuine scientific inquiry, not to mention political debate,

should always be concerned when question marks are removed," Woudhuysen wrote. "The

heart of the problem with today's supposed consensus on climate science is not so much a

false claim to knowledge of how climate works, as an assertion that such knowledge can

tell us how to live our lives. In this sense, the real consensus on climate change today is

more political than scientific. It is a consensus that privileges emotional fears of loss, and

which is based on apocalyptic thinking and doubt about humanity's achievements and

capabilities," he added. (LINK)

Geologist Peter Sciaky who has served as a chief geologist for companies and written

scientific reports, declared himself a skeptic of man-made climate change in 2007.

"Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a

one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know

one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single

geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon," Sciaky wrote in a June 9, 2007

article at CounterPunch.org. "A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several

salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware). The

first of these is that the planet has never been this cool," Sciaky wrote. "There is abundant

fossil evidence to support this--from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the

rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossil in sedimentary rocks of the

far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth's history. The present global

warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much ‗on schedule.' One thing, for sure, is

that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of

whom are employed by the petroleum industry)," Sciaky wrote. "There are hundreds of

reasons--political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental--for cleaning up our

environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, cleaning up our

nuclear program, etc. Global warming is not one of them," he concluded. (LINK)

208

Marine Biologist Daniel Botkin, President of the Center for the Study of the

Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and

Marine Biology at the University of California, authored the book Discordant

Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Botkin also dampened global

warming fears in 2007. "Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will

affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the

evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence

suggests the contrary," Botkin wrote in an October 17, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street

Journal. "Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other

documents say that 20%-30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction

in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5

million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and

as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the

millions of species on Earth went extinct," Botkin explained. "We're also warned that

tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis

epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that

temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of

these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so

in the future, global warming or not," he wrote. "I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who

believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try

to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only

from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that

took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the popular imagination

today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis," he added.

(LINK)

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and co-author with Physicist Henrik

Svensmark of a new 2007 book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate

Change, expressed his view that the UN rejects science it sees as "politically incorrect,"

and accused the UN of denying that "climate history and related archeology give solid

support to the solar hypothesis." Calder wrote in a February 11, 2007 op-ed in the UK

Times, "Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of one particular

hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a

result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted

with impediments to their research careers." Calder concluded, "Humility in face of

Nature's marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and

even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars."

Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of Department of Earth and

Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, believes Gore's understanding

of climate science is so poor that he told his undergrad students at University of

Pennsylvania in February 2007, "Every single one of you knows more about [global

warming] than Al Gore." According to the February 2007 edition of Philadelphia

Magazine, the Ivy League professor Giegengack voted for Gore for president in 2000 and

would probably vote for him again if given the opportunity. But Giegengack's support of

Gore faded when he examined the science presented in Gore's film: "The glossy production

[An Inconvenient Truth] is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to

209

public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public

behind a particular ideology." Giegengack, who holds both a master's degree and a

doctorate in geology, explained that the Earth has been warming for about 20,000 years,

and humans have only been collecting data for about 200 years. "For most of Earth's

history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has only rarely

been cooler," Giegengack said, noting that the colder periods included ice piled up two

miles thick on what is now North America. According to the magazine, "Giegengack tells

his students they might want to consider that ‗natural' climatic temperature cycles control

carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That's the crux of his argument with

Gore's view of global warming - he says carbon dioxide doesn't control global temperature,

and certainly not in a direct, linear way." "Sea level is rising," Giegengack said. The article

continued: "But, he explains, it's been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago.

The rate of rise has been pretty slow - only about 400 feet so far. And recently - meaning in

the thousands of years - the rate has slowed even more. The Earth's global ocean level is

only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That's less than the thickness of one nickel. For the

catastrophe of flooded cities and millions of refugees that Gore envisions, sea levels would

have to rise about 20 feet." Giegengack explains: "At the present rate of sea-level rise it's

going to take 3,500 years to get up there [to Gore's predicted rise of 20 feet]. So if for

some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level

doesn't know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming." Finally,

Giegengack concludes by rejecting the notion that we need to "save" the Earth. "There's all

this stuff about saving the planet. The Earth is fine. The Earth was fine before we got here,

and it'll be fine long after we're gone." Giegengack's University of Pennsylvania

colleague, Geologist Dr. Ed Doheny (formerly of Drexel University) also critiqued

former Vice President Al Gore's climate science presentation. "[Gore's] got his independent

and dependent variables all mixed up," Doheny said according to an October 18, 2007

article in The Daily Pennsylvanian. Doheny also mocked Gore by stating, "I didn't know

they gave the Nobel Prize for acting." (LINK)

AccuWeather Chief Meteorologist Joe Bastardi questioned whether mankind was

driving recent warming or whether it was "the pulsing of the sun" in an April 10, 2007 blog

titled, "Does the Sun Have the Smoking Gun?" "People are concerned that 50 years from

now it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's

cold and getting colder," Bastardi, who specializes in long-range forecasts, wrote. "You

see, the warmer it gets, the tougher it is to get warmer. There will always be a certain set

point in a system and unless the amounts of water and land changes, it will try to get back

to that set point. The oscillations of water temperatures can distort feedback from the Earth

as I believe we are seeing now, and the dance between the tropics and non tropical areas as

far as the weather goes is something that one can see in the [19]30s through the [19]50s,

but at least to me disappears in the [19]60s through the [19]80s, or when the Pacific is in its

warmer cycle, the Atlantic cooler," Bastardi wrote. He rejected the idea that the C02

climate connection was the only acceptable view in the climate change debate. "One has to

understand that the force feeding of any idea with so many variables in a system is counter

to methods long established to prove or disprove theories," Bastardi explained.

Environmental scientist Dr. David W. Schnare, a senior enforcement counsel at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who has managed EPA's Office of Ground-

Water and Drinking Water Economic, Legislative and Policy Analysis Branch,

210

proclaimed his man-made climate skepticism in 2007. "When it comes to global warming,

I'm a skeptic because the conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the

shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models," Schnare wrote on August 10, 2007. "I

'm a Ph.D. environmental scientist. As a scientist, from time-to-time I must also be a

skeptic. It's in the nature of the job," he wrote. "The fundamental data set on which the

international community has based its models has been challenged and the keepers of the

data have had to downward adjust their numbers, the first of several downward

adjustments, apparently," Schnare explained. "As a policy matter, one has to be less willing

to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain. So, for this reason alone, I'm also

skeptical about governmental responses," he added. (LINK)

Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery's 2006 book,

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, details the solar-climate link using

hundreds of studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures

following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles

of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings." "Past climate warmings haven't correlated with

CO2 changes. The Antarctic ice cores show that after the last four Ice Ages, the

temperatures warmed 800 years before the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere. The

warming produced more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around," said co-author

Avery in an April 6, 2007 op-ed. (LINK) Avery also noted that "70% of the warming we

have had since 1850 occurred before 1940 and 80% of the human emitted C02 occurred

after 1940, which tells me that the warming before 1940 was by natural cycle. The

warming since 1940 -- 2/10 of a degree Celsius -- I will give Al Gore 1/10 [of a degree

Celsius], that is all I can give him (for a human contribution to warming) and I don't think

that's enough to frighten my school children," Avery said in an April 28, 2007 CBS

Chicago TV special "The Truth About Global Warming." (LINK) Avery also explained in

an April 25, 2007 op-ed, "We've had no warming at all since 1998." "Remember, too, that

each added unit of CO2 has less impact on the climate. The first 40 parts per million (ppm)

of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as much climate impact

as the next 360 ppm," he added. (LINK)

Aeronautical engineer Eduardo Ferreyra, president and founder of the Argentinean

Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, questioned man-made climate fears in 2007. "Wasn't

warming supposed to be ‗global'? As our records shows, Argentina has been cooling since

10 years ago, and the central part of the country since 1987. As Hadley Center's recently

published data shows, the Southern Hemisphere temperatures have been decreasing for the

last seven years," Ferreyra wrote in the New York Times blog Dot Earth on December 18,

2007. "2007 has seen media temperatures steadily 2º to 4ºC lower than normal average, and

our present summer shows a December with a decreasing trend," Ferreyra explained. "Cold

Antarctic Polar Fronts have increased in intensity and frequency. Late frosts as the

November 14th, 2007 one caused a 50-80% loss in wheat, corn, and barley crops in the

humid Pampas. Similar abnormal cold weather was observed in the rest of South America,

South Africa, New Zealand and big areas in Australia. So, where is global warming? Or

these are just natural variations (when it is cooling) but when there is a slight increase in

temperature then it is human induced "global warming"? Ferreyra wrote. (LINK) & (LINK)

Climatologist Brian Fuchs of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the

University of Nebraska-Lincoln said in February 2007 that it was "up in the air" how long

211

the current warming trend would continue. Fuchs also replied "probably not" when asked if

human emissions are solely to blame for global warming. (LINK)

Meteorologist Robert Cohen, a member of the American Meteorological Society who

also has a Masters in physical oceanography, called the UN IPCC process "scientific

socialism" on March 5, 2007 and declared that the "idea of a consensus in the

meteorological community is false." "Research has also shown that slight changes in

energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which

are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can

determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to

space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun's incoming energy is reflected back to

space before reaching the Earth's surface," he wrote. "I do not agree with all of the IPCC

conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the

meteorological community is false," Cohen said. He added: "Is it worth destroying our

economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical

observations?" (LINK) "Much of the ‗proof' of agw (anthropogenic global warming) is

based on models that can not recreate the historical record. There is a wealth of

observations that disprove these models, but that is ignored in the media," he wrote on

August 13, 2007.

Dr. Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur

Institute in Paris, participated in the UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of

consensus on global warming a "sham." Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, had to

threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. "That is how they make it

seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true." Reiter

has written more than 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals. (LINK) Reiter also wrote on

January 11, 2007: "For years, the public has been fed a lusty diet of climate doom and

gloom, cooked and served by alarmists who use the language of science to push their

agenda. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the ‗climate consensus' or be

branded a callous skeptic. For twelve years, my colleagues and I have protested against the

unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease [of malaria] to spread. We

have failed miserably to alter the situation. Recently, the Associated Press quoted an

entomologist who claimed there is an unprecedented outbreak of malaria in Karatina,

Kenya, at 1,868 meters (6,130 feet). The heart-rending article began: ‗The soft cries of

children broke the morning stillness, as parents brought them into the hillside hospital, one

by one ... drained by a disease once unknown in the high country of Kenya.' But there is

nothing new about malaria in Karatina. Between World War I and the 1950s, there were ten

disastrous epidemics in the region, and they extended much higher into these hills," Reiter

wrote. "We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists - but they continue to ignore

the facts, and perpetuate the lies," he concluded. (LINK)

Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a climate

researcher, found 31 errors and exaggerations in the UN IPCC 4th assessment summary in

February 2007. The IPCC quietly made the corrections without public admission of guilt,

according to Lord Christopher Monckton. "The UN has still not corrected or apologized for

the ‗hockey-stick,' by which it falsely abolished the Mediaeval Warm Period, when

temperatures were 2 or 3C warmer than today, and disaster failed to ensue. But it has been

212

forced to correct several schoolboy howlers - though it has not had the honesty to announce

publicly and clearly that it has done so," Monckton said in March 2007. Monckton echoed

UK Lord Nigel Lawson's call that the IPCC be disbanded. "It is too politicized and too

incompetent to serve any useful purpose," Monckton said. (LINK)

Soil scientist Don Barron presented his research in Minnesota on March 13, 2007 that

details his view that global warming is natural and not driven by anthropogenic emissions.

Barron cited numerous scientific studies and concluded by asking, "Global warming or

Gospel by Gore? You decide." (LINK)

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist

at the University of Colorado in Boulder, chastised the news media for promoting the

idea that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is written by the scientists. "The media

is in error when it states that, ‗The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -made up

of thousands of scientists from around the world - reported earlier this month they are more

certain than ever that humans are heating earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil

fuels...,'" Pielke, Sr. wrote on March 9, 2007. "Are there really ‗thousands of scientists' who

wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen

scientists," Pielke Sr. added. (LINK) Pielke, Sr. believes land use changes play a key role

in impacting temperatures and believes the IPCC fails to recognize this factor. "In terms of

climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP

Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment

have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2

relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and

more generally, on climate variability and change," Pielke, Sr.'s blog states on the "Main

Conclusions" page. (LINK) In a May 10, 2007 blog post, Pielke wrote that the UN was

"disingenuous" with many of their claims. "Since about 2002 there has been NO

statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere and

since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere. The

IPCC SPM conclusion that ‗warming of the climate system is unequivocal' is wrong as it

ignores the lack of such warming in recent years by these other metrics of climate system

heat changes," Pielke explained. "Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the

neglect to include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (both

of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for the coming decades by the multi-

decadal global climate models, except for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously

biased report by the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen to

parrot the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative reporting on these

issues," he concluded. (LINK) [Note: Dr. Pielke, Sr. does not like label 'skeptic', but he is

included in this report due to his views contrary to UN IPCC.]

Meteorologist Bill Steffen of Grand Rapids, Michigan noted that C02 is not the only

factor to consider in climate change. "There are at least several causes of recent ‗global

warming'. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gets most of the attention, but there are other factors. A

minor effect is the lack of a substantial volcano in recent years. The last volcano to pump a

lot of dirt into the upper atmosphere was Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991," Steffen

wrote in a January 28, 2007 blog post. (LINK) Steffen also noted in a November 11, 2008

article, ―The dataset used by James Hansen at NASA (and Al Gore) shows more warming

in recent years. Looking at this graph…you certainly might have been alarmed about

213

warming global temperatures from 1988-1998…but look what‘s happened since 1998. In

the last few years, world temperatures have trended downward, coincident with the solar

sunspot minimum. This has political and financial implications. With certain politicians

factoring in ‗substantial‘ increases in your electric bill and your heating bill to fight global

warming, would the ensuing hardship to lower and middle income families really warrant

that action, considering the direction global temperatures seem to be headed.‖ (LINK)

Mathematician David Orrell dismissed long-term climate models as unreliable. "The

track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone's still really

interested in it. It's sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can't make long-term

predictions of the economy, and we can't make long-term predictions of the climate," Orrell

said in an April 3, 2007 article in Canada's National Post. The National Post article

explained Orrell's views: "And so scientists use theoretical concepts like ‗flux adjustments'

to make the models agree with reality. When models about the future climate are in

agreement, ‗it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modeling

community than it does about global warming and the economy.'" (LINK)

Biochemistry researcher Dr. Thomas Lavin, who is a physician who holds patents

regarding physical, chemical, and biological sciences and has conducted peer-

reviewed research and experiments, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I first

published a peer reviewed paper in 1981, and have been looking at data for 30 years,"

Lavin wrote to EPW on December 13, 2007. "I am somebody who has designed

experiments and looked at data. And if you simply freeze Al Gore's movie when he

introduces the CO2 and temperature relationship through geologic time, and look at the

graph, the temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven elevations

recorded geologically. And this time gap is on the order of a few hundred years," Lavin

explained. "Add this to the NASA temperature revision [making 1934 the hottest year in

the U.S.] and then add that many of the climate models which predict doom use the old,

unrevised NASA data, and you have total garbage in/ garbage out," he wrote. "Before we

start regulating who gets to build a factory, and who gets to fly on a private jet, or drive to

work, I think the data has to be real and convincing," he added. "This episode in history I

think will go down as marking the reverse of Galileo and Copernicus, the end of the Age of

Reason, and it's frightening," Lavin concluded.

Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored an August 20, 2007 paper entitled

"Probability of Sudden Global Cooling." The study Harris authored found that "the

data...clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and

it shows that we have reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a

sudden cooling climate change. Based on this analysis we can say that there is a probability

of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He added,

"By observation of a number of natural internal processes we can find further support for

the coming change and I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf

Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar

activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before. The Stratosphere

is cooling and ice is building on the South Pole. Climate is becoming unstable. Most of

these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at

the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long term cooling." (LINK)

214

French scientist Vincent Courtillot is the director of the Institute de Physique du

Globe de Paris, a member of the Academy of Sciences, a geomagnetism scientist, and

president of the Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Section of the American

Geophysical Union. Courtillot is also a climate skeptic. Courtillot joined his fellow

colleagues at the French Academy of Sciences in a scientific debate. Courtillot explained in

an October 15, 2007 article in Le Figaro that "it is important that [climate skeptics] can

express themselves." Courtillot represented the skeptical arguments along with

geophysicist Louis Le Mouël of the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris. Claude

Allègre, prominent climate skeptic, French Socialist, and award winning geophysicist

also supported the skeptics' team. The article, titled "Climate: Polemic Between

Academics" in Le Figaro reported, "Louis Le Mouël represented the path of ‗skeptics,'

highlighting the role of variations in activity of the sun, volcanism, cosmic rays or

magnetism, rather than changes in CO2 of human origin, to explain variations in

temperature." (LINK)

Frederic Fluteau, a geomagnetism scientist with the Institute de Physique du Globe de

Paris, co-authored a paper published on January 30, 2007 in the Earth and Planetary

Science Letters. The paper, co-authored with geomagnetism scientist Yves Gallet and

scientist Agnes Genevey of the Centre de Research at the Restauration des Musées,

found, "Much of the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past

150 years occurred prior to the 1940s and after the 1980s. The main causes invoked are

solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content or sulfur due to natural or

anthropogenic action, or internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system." The

paper also found that "a proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the

geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-

ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in

the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and

geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the

overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries." Le Mouël also served as

one of the co-authors. (LINK)

Meteorologist Jesse Ferrell of AccuWeather praised the new skeptical UK documentary

The Great Global Warming Swindle in an April 2, 2007 blog post. "I will say that this

movie has blown the entire [climate] debate open again, or should," Ferrell wrote. "Many

people have made up their minds without seeing or hearing all the evidence. If you've seen

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth then you should take the time to watch The Great Global

Warming Swindle," he added. (LINK)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released seven "pillars of wisdom" to

counter the UN IPCC climate report. As detailed in the Dominion Post on April 5, 2007,

the coalition of prominent scientific skeptics includes: Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert

reviewer for the IPCC and most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate

Centre; Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, a geologist and paleoclimatologist and former

director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand; Professor Augie

Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science,

University of Wyoming, and previously MetService chief meteorologist; Professor

Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in

palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook

215

University, Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Pert; and Roger

Dewhurst, of Katikati, a consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.

The seven "pillars of wisdom" are:

1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been

warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer

periods.

2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles,

the sun's magnetic field and solar particles.

These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence

suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.

3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that

cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.

4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.

For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than

now.

5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.

Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.

6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to

world temperatures.

The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known

problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria

and Aids.

7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods,

droughts, and storms.

The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with

weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming

trends. (LINK)

#

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, a former dean of engineering and pro-vice

chancellor at Monash University, accused the scientific leaders of trying to stifle debate

over the causes of climate change. (LINK) According to a April 5, 2007 article in the

Sydney Morning Herald, Professor Endersbee says it is highly probable that increased

electromagnetic radiation of the sun is behind global warming. "There are several

216

disturbing aspects of the IPCC report which indicate that the conclusions are based on

serious misconceptions about the behavior of the Earth," Prof Endersbee said. "The report

reflects little understanding of the dynamic relation between the Earth, the Sun and the

Cosmos. In these circumstances it is incredible that some leaders of scientific societies and

academies have tried to use their authority to demand acceptance of the IPCC report,"

Endersbee added. In a follow-up interview on July 6, 2007 on Australia's ABC Western

Queensland's Morning Program, Endersbee explained the earth is an electrical conductor

moving through the magnetic flux of the sun. "So we have these electric currents being

created within the earth in response to the electro-magnetic radiation of the sun and that is

the main driver of climate change on earth - it's not man," he explained. Endersbee believes

that the world has been warming naturally due to this increased magnetic flow from the sun

that started around the year 1700. "And now we're starting to depict that it seems to be

reaching an end of that cycle and it does seem as though the earth may be cooling down,"

he said. Endersbee also said carbon trading schemes were being set up by governments for

political reasons, not scientific reasons. "What terrifies me is the way the state governments

in Australia [with] their emissions trading are contemplating using the superannuation

funds to invest in carbon trading - they're going to lose their money!" He further explained,

"Scholarship is being driven by media and media attention and this is a terrifying state of

affairs. You can get all the money in the world if the research you're doing is related to

climate change... if you say climate change isn't caused by man it's caused by the sun, it

doesn't get any money at all." (LINK)

Mathematical researcher Douglas J. Keenan, a former Morgan Stanley employee and

current independent mathematical researcher, who has authored numerous peer-

reviewed studies, accused the UN of "fabrications" and "discovered that the sources used

by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) have disregarded the positions

of weather stations." Keenan accused the UN of "intentionally using outdated data on

China from 1991 and ignoring revised data on the country from 1997." (LINK) "One of

the big problems in global warming studies, and in science generally, is that research data

is often not available to outsiders. Instead, researchers tend to hoard the data for themselves

and their friends (who are reluctant to be critical)," Keenan on April 4, 2007. (LINK)

Keenan wrote in a March 28, 2007 blog, "The problems with the peer review process have

implications for our understanding of global warming (as well as for science generally).

Once something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal-particularly a prestigious

journal-it tends to be considered as established, possibly even heralded as ‗truth'. This

means that other researchers will often rely on its conclusions, with little, if any, further

checking. The extent to which this happens varies among different branches of science. It

seems to be especially so in the study of global warming." Keenan continued, "The

primary body tasked with advising government policy makers about global warming is the

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Policy makers generally regard the

IPCC as authoritative. The IPCC bases its analyses on peer-reviewed research, but it does

no checking of that research itself. Yet most peer-reviewed research is not properly

checked prior to its publication. In other words, most of the research that is relied upon by

the IPCC, and thus government policy makers, has never been properly checked. That

probably seems incredible; it is unfortunately true." (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Craig James, of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate, questions the

computer model predictions of climate doom. James, who was elected a fellow of the

217

American Meteorological Society for outstanding contribution to the atmospheric sciences,

wrote in a February 14, 2007 blog post, "It seems to make sense, CO2 is a greenhouse gas

and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the temperature should increase.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. If CO2 was the only thing that changed and there were

no other what are called ‗forcings' and ‗feedbacks', then maybe it would be simple." "It

seems to me there is plenty of room for skepticism about the scenarios painted by the

models based on purely scientific grounds. Anyone who takes the time and effort to study

the issue would not make the incredible statement that skeptics are on a par with

‗Holocaust Deniers' as Ellen Goodman did in a Boston Globe article a couple of weeks

ago," James wrote. According to James, computer models do not include volcanoes, which

cool the atmosphere, and "the models do not properly account for the role clouds may play

in a warmer world. We don't clearly understand whether they produce a positive or

negative feedback (additional warming or cooling)." (LINK) James probed the heart of the

argument for man-made global warming when he asked in a June 4, 2007 blog, "Is it good

science to never once mention the problems with the General Circulation Models

(GCMs)?" "The rationale seems to be that the models produce the kind of warming we see

only when you include an increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The warming

cannot be reproduced by natural processes alone in the models. That's because the models

do not handle those natural processes correctly. They either don't include or are woefully

inadequate in their handling of major climate forcings such as the Pacific Decadal

Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Nino, La Nina, water vapor, cloud

feedbacks, etc. This is one case where getting the answer you are looking for in the models

occurs for the wrong reason. There may have to be a snowstorm in Miami before it is no

longer politically incorrect to say such a thing in public. Actually, the snowstorm would

probably be blamed on global warming too," he explained. (LINK) James also wrote a blog

post detailing how the IPCC downplays cold weather is a bigger killer than hot weather.

James's April 4, 2007 blog was titled "Heat and Cold Related Deaths." "This paper from

WebMD states: ‗Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the

United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics," James wrote. (LINK)

James summed up his view in a May 28, 2007 blog: "The more I study this subject and

become increasingly aware of the failings of the computer models, the more I think you can

trust the Old Farmer's Almanac on what next year's winter will be like more than you can

trust the climate models." (LINK)

Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental

Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia, rejected alarmist views of climate

science in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 6, 2007. "The Earth's

temperature rose by 0.7 per cent in the 20th century, but there was also an increase in

piracy. Does that mean piracy causes global warming?" Plimer asked. "There is new work

emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation

between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation. What if global

warming has nothing to do with human activity? What happens if the astronomers are right,

and the world is actually entering a cooling period?" Plimer questioned. "We geologists

have seen climate change for 4500 million years. Tell us something new," he added.

(LINK)

Meteorologist Jim Clark of Florida‟s WZVN-TV ABC 7 declared he did not agree with

what has been labeled the "consensus" view on global warming in a March 30, 2007 radio

218

interview. Clark, an on-air weather forecaster since 1983, said, "The amount of human

impact on climate change seems to be pretty small and seems very unlikely to be a

disaster." "Climate is something that has always been changing on the planet. It fluctuates,

it goes up and down. I have always thought of climate that is not homeostasis. So much of

the current debate, it just strikes me as very odd, especially in the popular media where the

headlines screamed the debate is over. Well, there never was a debate about whether the

globe was warming. The real debate has always been the amount of the human effect on the

climate," Clark said. (LINK) In a December 10, 2007 commentary, Clark further expanded

on his climate views. ―The planet has not warmed over the last decade and climate factors

seem to be lining up for a global cool down, despite the ever increasing concentration of

atmospheric CO2,‖ Clark wrote. ―Those defending an impending global warming crisis try

to explain the mid-20th century cooling with the notion that man-made aerosols (air

pollution) cut down on the amount of sunshine reaching the surface and caused the

cooling. The problem with that argument is that the cooling took place in both

hemispheres, while man-made aerosols were primarily in the northern hemisphere. To this

day, we do not know very much about how human emitted aerosols impact climate. Some

say they produce warming. Others argue for cooling. Still some suggest that the affect of

aerosols depends on there location in the atmosphere and may produce warming or cooling

at different times,‖ he explained. ―Despite the overwhelming evidence that internal cycles

like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) have played a huge role in 20th century climate

change, the IPCC and the global warming community ignore them almost entirely,‖ he

added. ―It is not possible to tell just how much of the 0.06 degrees warming per decade is

the result of increasing CO2 and other ‗greenhouse‘ gases. Even if we assume that it

accounts for 2/3 of the observed trend (unlikely), it only leads to a net warming of 0.80

degrees over the next 200 years! Such a warming would be largely beneficial and any

negative impacts could be dealt with cheaply and efficiently at regional levels,‖ Clark

concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Indur M Goklany, Ph.D, who has represented the United States at the International

Panel on Climate Change and in the negotiations leading to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change, also scrutinized the UN's IPCC Summary

for Policymakers (SPM) released in 2007. "Once one gets past the opaque verbiage of the

SPM, it is clear that most of the negative impacts listed in the SPM are overstated, while

the positive impacts are understated," Goklany noted in an April 9, 2007 critique. (LINK)

Goklany managed the US Environmental Protection Agency's fledgling emissions-trading

program in the 1980s. "These [IPCC] studies estimate impacts for 2085 using technologies

from the 1990s or earlier. This is like estimating today's food production and levels of

hunger using technologies from the 1910s! You are bound to underestimate food

production and overestimate hunger. In developing countries prevalence of chronic hunger

declined from 37% to 17% between 1970 and 2001, despite an 83% increase in population,

in substantial part because of new technologies," Goklany added. "Similarly, human health

impacts are often estimated assuming that adaptive capacities are fixed as of the start date

of the analysis. Under such a methodology the mortality and morbidity rates from water

related diseases in the U.S., for example, would be the same in 2000 as in 1900. But in fact,

these rates have declined by 99% or more during the 20th century for disease such as

typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, malaria, etc.," Goklany noted.

219

Global warming author and economist Dr. Thomas Gale Moore is a former professor

at Michigan State University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, and author of

the book Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming. "I don't

argue that we're having global warming, but I find the effects are going to be small," Moore

said according to the September/October 2005 issue of Stanford Magazine. The article

explained that Moore "insists that Americans in particular will benefit from a warmer

climate in many ways, including longer growing seasons and reduced heating costs."

(LINK)

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin launched a skeptical website called Climatepolice.com on February 25, 2007. "The goal of the website is to show the public that other research on

climate change exists and the debate is not over," Conklin said. Conklin, who specializes in

analysis of surface weather observations, also operates NiceWeather.com, a website

specializing in monthly weather forecasts. "Scientific research should be apolitical.

Extremist groups have promoted global warming as their primary political issue. I want

this website to help correct that," Conklin added. (LINK) On August 10, 2007 Conklin

wrote: ―A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have

leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a

farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won‘t start until

2009.‖ (LINK)

Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy

of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at

Carnegie-Mellon University. "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not

human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the

Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas)

hypothesis does not do this," Wojick, who specializes in mathematical logic, wrote in a

May 2, 2005 commentary. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false

alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates," he explained. (LINK)

Oxford-educated economist Tony Gilland is the science and society director of the UK

based Institute of Ideas. Gilland, who initiated the UK's Science Education Project,

declared the debate about global warming far from over in 2007 and lamented the UN's

politicization. "The UN's all-powerful climate change panel is no straightforward scientific

body. It is a deeply political organization that was born out of disenchantment with

progress," Gilland wrote in a June 28, 2007 essay. "The IPCC, an unelected body, holds an

unprecedented influence on the lives of everyone on the planet - and any attempt to

question this body's legitimacy or actions is shouted down as ‗denial' of the scientific

facts," he explained. "It is striking how many in the scientific community have become

extremely intolerant of dissent," Gilland added. "The way in which politicians, the media

and civil society have come to hang on the latest pronouncements of the IPCC

demonstrates how this political failure has allowed a scientific conceptualization of a

political problem to become institutionalized across the globe, to the point where

conceiving of it differently has become almost unimaginable," he concluded. (LINK)

Analytical chemist Hans Schreuder who publishes the UK based website

ILoveMyCarbonDioxide.com, rejected man-made global warming fears in 2007. "Any

and all arguments put forward by the perceived consensus of scientists who still have their

220

names engraved on the IPCC report are based on nothing more than theory and best fit

computer modeling. Normally varying weather patterns are ‗blamed' on AGW

(anthropogenic global warming) without any scientific basis and for the sole purpose of

scaremongering a gullible public," Schreuder wrote on December 10, 2007. Schreuder also

asserted that "ALL ‗proof' is based on theories and computer models, not actual direct

evidence - cause there ain't none. ALL the records from the past show clearly that CO2 did

NOTHING to ‗drive' or ‗force' any temperature changes. If it did, we would be as hot as

hell by now and no life would be possible." (LINK) & (LINK)

Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin (name also sometimes translated to

spell Soroktin) of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has

authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution

and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." Sorochtin, who made several

Antarctic expeditions, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "The temperature increase

has a pronounced natural origin and is not determined by the ‗greenhouse effect' of

greenhouse gases," Sorochtin wrote in an essay on October 9, 2007 in Ria Novosti.

(translated) "Even if the concentration of ‗greenhouse gases' double man would not

perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. "The real causes of climate change lie

in the unevenness of the sun's radiation, in the precession (amendment of the rotational

axis) of the earth, in the instability of the ocean currents in the periodic desalination and

salinity of surface waters of the Arctic Sea and the other. The main causes of which are the

solar activity and the luminosity. The higher these parameters, the higher the temperature,"

Sorochtin wrote. "The highest point of the warming has already occurred," he wrote. "The

low point phase of solar activity, with a sharp decline in temperature will be accompanied;

against the year 2041 is expected. The cool climate is at least 50 to 60 years," he added.

(LINK)

Climate change author and engineer Rolf Riehm of Germany wrote the 2007 book

skeptical of man-made global warming titled Is the climatic Change inevitable? - About

the Environmental Hypocrisy. "Allegedly the temperature of the earth has risen during the

past 20 years by about 0.6° C. And carbon dioxide is claimed to be the reason for it. In

reality it is not possible to measure the temperature of the earth: One would have to define

before in what region, one would have to say if we compare at night or during day-time. If

in summer or in winter. If we measure in the Antarctic or in the Sahara!" Riehm wrote in

his book. "In reality climate changes occur in cycles of several 1000 years," he added.

Riehm also critiqued former Vice President Al Gore. "Gore has no knowledge of the laws

of science. But this does not prevent him from making hundreds of false statements. He

showed terrific trick films of the rise of the sea water level and showed how dozens of

major towns drowned in the floods," Riehm wrote.

State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O'Brien, professor emeritus of Florida State

University, and who serves as the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric

Prediction Studies, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears. "The best

measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently

they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even

the UN IPCC quotes this," O'Brien wrote to EPW on September 23 about an AP article

predicting dire sea level rise. "If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146

221

years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‗scare tactic' for these guys," O'Brien added.

(LINK)

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New

Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to

1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001, declared, "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" in an April 10,

2007 article. Gray is also a member of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. "All

[UN IPCC does] is make ‗projections' and ‗estimates'. No climate model has ever been

properly tested, which is what ‗validation' means, and their ‗projections' are nothing more

than the opinions of ‗experts' with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce

the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‗projections' and ‗estimates'.

It should be obvious that they are ridiculous," Gray noted. "Global temperatures have not

been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down

with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‗warming'. Christchurch has not

warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960," Gray

added. (LINK) In a July 3, 2007 blog post, Gray further explained, "I have written many

pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored."

"The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very

few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who

write it," he added. "The [IPCC] ‗Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but

the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd

claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically

that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this

ain't so," he concluded. (LINK) In a May 28, 2007 letter to Canada's The Hill Times, Gray

noted how political the IPCC process has become. "[No one can] deny that the ‗Summary

for Policymakers' is approved line-by-line by the government representatives because the

press has recently mentioned that particular conclusions have involved clashes between the

Russians, Chinese and Americans. The ‗drafting authors' job is to write down what they are

told to do," Gray wrote. "...The ‗lead authors' of the report are all chosen (and usually

financed) by government representatives, so they can be relied upon to produce results

which the governments like. They do not want another fiasco like the one in the 1995

report when they had to alter the ‗final draft' to comply with the ‗Summary for

Policymakers.' They have a set of instructions for ‗lead authors' which ensures that they toe

the line. This year's report is more extreme than before and there is continuous publicity for

its extravagant claims. The ‗lead authors' are certainly behind this, but an increasing

proportion of all the other scientists involved with the report are becoming irritated by the

propaganda. It is interesting that this year we have had a succession of ‗Summaries for

Policymakers' without a single copy of any of the reports upon which they are supposed to

be based," he concluded.

Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist who is

currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic, challenged the

premise of the C02 driven climate cycles in a April 9, 2007 blog post. (LINK) "As we have

explained in 2006, Vostok ice core records show that the carbon dioxide concentration

averaged over a few centuries has been correlated with temperature at least for half a

million of years. However, we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the

CO2 concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. It follows that the

222

greenhouse effect hasn't been important in the last half a million of years," Motl wrote.

"For whatever reason, some people are not willing to accept this obvious conclusion. That's

why they invent various bizarre verbal constructs to circumvent the otherwise inevitable

conclusion," Motl noted. "However, there are other ways to see that the influence of

temperature on the concentration of gases has been more important than any influence in

the opposite direction. For example, the ice core records show that the concentration of

methane was correlated with temperature, too. If the CO2 concentration were the primary

cause, we would have no explanation why the CH4 (Methane) concentration was also

correlated. In fact, CO2 and CH4 play the very same role in the ice core records. If some

combination of them determined the temperature, we would still have no explanation why

these two concentrations were correlated with one another," Motl added. (LINK)

Team of Scientists Question Validity of a 'Global Temperature' - From a March 18,

2007 article in Science Daily: "Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global

temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an

impossibility, says Physicist Dr. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr

Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with

professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross

McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada." The Science Daily article reads, "It is

impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate

of Earth." "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the

climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive

the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate."

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistics locally, it is meaningless

to talk about a global temperature for Earth. "The globe consists of a huge number of

components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to

calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking

about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two

countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.'"

The article concludes, "These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are

all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another.

Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can

simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus

claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the

researchers point out." (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington

University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, chastised Gore

for his scientific inaccuracies. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are

seeing, and we have to temper that with real data," Easterbrook said in a March 13, 2007

New York Times article. "[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ‗our

civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this'

threatened change.

"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed

temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the

medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ‗20 times greater than the warming

in the past century.' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed

on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ‗I've never been paid a nickel by

223

an oil company,' Dr. Easterbrook told the group," the Times article explained. (LINK)

Easterbrook rejects the notion that there is a "consensus" on global warming. "There are

several hundred thousand scientists in the world. And the people who wrote the [UN IPCC]

report that received a lot of publicity in February consisted of 33 policy makers, and the

authorship of the entire IPCC report consists of 143 people. And that's hardly

representative of the entire meteorological word," Easterbrook told Fox News Channel on

March 13, 2007. "The validity of a scientific concept is not a matter of how many people

vote for it or against it. It's a matter of the evidence upon which it's based. And the truth is

there is no real tangible evidence of the connection between CO2 and global warming," he

added.

Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany,

criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can

really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted

in an April 5, 2007 article.(translated) "The earth will not die. Our archives show clearly

that it has often been warmer, in addition, there have been cooler periods, which occurred

just as fast as the current warm phase," Mangini said. "The statement that the heating up of

the climate taking place now is comparable only with the heating up before 120,000 years

is simply not correct. We have data, which show that there were periods which were

similarly warm or even still warmer than today during the last ten thousand years,"

Mangini said. (LINK)

German climate scientist Dr. Hans von Storch, the Director of Institute for Coastal

Research of the GKSS Research Centre, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of

the University of Hamburg who focuses on climate diagnostics and statistical

climatology, and has published 11 books. Storch believes human are influencing climate

change, but feels the fear factor has been dramatically overplayed. "We should spend more

time talking about adjusting to the inevitable and not about reducing CO2 emissions. We

have to take away people's fear of climate change," Storch told the German publication Der

Spiegel on March 16, 2007. Storch dismissed fears of mass deaths from future heat waves

caused by global warming. "Such claims are completely idiotic and dubious. What they did

was to simply perform an extrapolation based on the mortality rate during the exceptionally

hot 2003 summer, which took everyone by surprise and for which we were therefore

completely unprepared. But if higher summer temperatures become the norm in the future,

people will adjust," he explained. (LINK) Storch noted the limitations of science. "We

climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios. In other words, things could end up

being completely different. But there are undoubtedly parts of the world that will benefit on

balance from climate change. Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold

and uncomfortable in the past. But it's considered practically heretical to even raise such

issues," he said.

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in

Huntsville and NASA, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd

assessment report and detailed how he witnessed scientists distorting the science. "I was

at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about

their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the

report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,"

Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. "One of the statements in the [IPCC Summary for

224

Policymakers] SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent

certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don't agree

with that. I think things are much more ambiguous," Christy said. Christy also dismissed

Gore's warning of a 20 foot sea level rise to due future global warming. "To come up with

20 feet is really grasping at straws, I think, but it does make a dramatic image. It makes a

startling announcement," Christy said. (LINK) Christy dismissed fears of man-made

climate doom. "I don't see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what

should be correctly identified as ‗plant food,'" Christy wrote in a February 6, 2007 article.

"The climate cannot be predictably managed with such [emission reduction] proposals

given the uncertainty of natural variations. For example, to make a 10 percent dent in CO2

would require 1000 nuclear power plants and this would still not make a measurable

difference on whatever the climate will do anyway," Christy explained. "I'm full of

optimism about the continued growth of wealth and health around the world. This wealth

will create cleaner environments even in countries where persistent poverty has destroyed

too much habitat and fouled too many rivers," he concluded. (LINK)

Meteorologist Brian van de Graaff attributed recent warming trends to natural variability.

"History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a

warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this

with the lack of long-term scientific data," van de Graaff said in a December 2006

interview. Van de Graaff, who holds the prestigious Seal of Approval from the American

Meteorological Society, also noted how global warming has turned into such a heated

debate. "Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their

facts straight," he said. (LINK)

Meteorologist David Aldrich declared, "I am a global warming skeptic" in an April 9,

2007 blog post. "If you have had doubts, you have come to the right place," Aldrich wrote.

"Although, I believe man plays a role in climate change through urbanization ("the heat

island effect" & development), land use changes, and aerosols and gases -- natural factors

are ALSO important, most notably the sun and ocean," Aldrich who is certified by both the

American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, explained.

(LINK) "There's a different side to what is causing climate change. I think too much

emphasis has been put on CO2. I do not believe CO2 is a pollutant. I'm made of CO2,

you're made of CO2 ... the ocean is a reservoir of CO2," Aldrich explained in a June 6,

2007 article in City Paper. (LINK)

Renowned hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of

Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the schools

Tropical Meteorology Project, chastised former Vice President Al Gore as "a gross

alarmist" in an April 6, 2007 Associated Press interview. "[Gore's] one of these guys that

preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he

doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. Gray said. The AP article explained, "Gray

believes a recent increase in strong hurricanes is not due to global warming but is part of a

multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation

patterns." Gray believes current climate researchers rely too much on computer models.

"Us older guys that were around in the pre-satellite, pre-computer age, we had to deal with

the real weather. Most of these people don't forecast," he said. "They don't live in a real

world. They're living in an imaginary world." (LINK)

225

Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for

Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member

of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.

Dyson called himself a "heretic" on global warming. "Concerning the climate models, I

know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors

that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed

data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right

behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in

the atmosphere.," Dyson said in an April 10, 2007 interview. Dyson is also a fellow of the

American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a

fellow of the Royal Society of London. (LINK) "The fuss about global warming is grossly

exaggerated," Dyson also wrote in his 2007 book "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the

Place of Life in the Universe." Dyson focuses on debunking climate models predictions of

climate doom: "They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world

is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a

scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on

winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.

That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University and

former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who

has published numerous peer-reviewed papers, discredited the UN IPCC. "Many

distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned

from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political

and not scientific. Although at least -$50 billion has been spent on climate research, the

science arguments for a dangerous human influence on global warming have, if anything,

become weaker since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988," Carter wrote in an April 11,

2007 op-ed in the UK Telegraph. Carter, who has had over 100 papers published refereed

scientific journals, continued, "For more than 90 per cent of recent geological time, the

cores show that the earth has been colder than today. We modern humans are lucky to live

towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent, and welcome, warm interludes. It is a

10,000 year-long period called the Holo-cene, during which our civilizations have evolved

and flourished." "Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that

past temperature changes were followed - not preceded, but followed - by changes in the

atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Yet the public now believes strongly that increasing

human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause

of climate change that naturally postdates its supposed effect?" he added. "So the evidence

for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely

weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and

that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates

that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change (the parallel rise in the

late 20th century of both atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature) is now

negated," Carter concluded. (LINK) Carter also wrote a June 18, 2007 op-ed detailing even

more skepticism on climate fears. "Lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature

measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Niño events and large

volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which

atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent)," Carter wrote. "There are strong

226

indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by

climatic cooling over the next few decades," he added. (LINK)

Penn State Meteorologist Paul Knight, host and founder of the program "Weather

World" expressed skepticism about man-made global warming in 2007. "We have to be

very careful about using global temperatures. You have very few people who do it

absolutely correctly," Knight said in a April 20, 2007 interview. "I wish the climate system

were simple. It is not. Listen to the facts. There is a fair bit we do not understand," Knight

said. The article continued, "The southern ice cap over Antarctica has actually gotten

larger since the 1970s, Knight said. And the overall average temperature on the southern

tundra has actually dropped a half degree Celsius over the last two decades. To understand

global climate change, the sun must be taken into account, according to Knight. He said

much of the warmer temperatures the earth has experienced may be attributed to longer

sunspot cycles on the sun. Some scientists argue sunspots may actually make the sun's

powerful rays even stronger during cycles and may cause slightly higher temperatures on

Earth." http://www.lancasterfarming.com/node/532

Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the

University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research

articles, dismissed fears of man-made global warming. "Present-day temperatures are not

anomalously warm. The best methods we have for estimating past temperatures are

borehole temperatures and the elevation of tree lines. Both of these methods indicate

temperatures during the High Middle Ages were just as warm as today. Five thousand to

7,000 years ago, temperatures were significantly warmer," Deming wrote in a January 10,

2007 op-ed in the Edmond Sun. "Ninety percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water

vapor. The warming response to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is

logarithmic. That means if some global warming does occur, most of it will be at night, at

winter, and at high latitudes where humidity is low. These are places and times where

warmer temperatures would be beneficial, not detrimental," Deming wrote. "Neither the

Greenland nor the Antarctic ice sheets are undergoing any significant ablation or melting.

The polar bear population is stable," he added. "No one has ever died from global warming.

What kills people is cold, not heat. For more than 150 years, it has been documented in the

medical literature that human mortality rates are highest in the winter when temperatures

are the coldest," he explained. "In summary, the problem is not one of skepticism, it's one

of ignorance. Global warming hysteria is based on ignorance fueled by speculation and

alarmism. The average person is more likely to be struck by a meteorite from outer space

than harmed by global warming," Deming concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Mel Goldstein, a PhD Meteorologist on Connecticut's TV News Channel 8, questioned the long-range climate models used by the UN's IPCC. "When you are in the

trenches and forecasting each and everyday, you begin to realize the inadequacies of our

computer models," Goldstein wrote in a March 9, 2007 blog. "I become skeptical when

atmospheric models are used to project conditions 100 or 200 years from now," he noted.

Goldstein, who established the first and only Bachelor's degree program in meteorology at

Connecticut Western Connecticut State University and authored the book The Complete

Idiot's Guide to Weather, also questioned how the IPCC could account for the range of

variables that go into long range climate projections. "There are many important variables

we just can't handle with confidence. For example in the IPCC report, the cooling effect of

227

clouds is given a low level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The range of possibilities is

so great that the highest estimate of reflectivity from clouds can completely balance the

highest estimate of warming from carbon dioxide. Then, there is the whole issue of water

vapor which is a powerful greenhouse gas. It can range from 0.2 to 2% in the atmosphere.

Whereas, carbon dioxide is about .03%. Sadly, we know so little about water vapor and the

heat it generates," Goldstein wrote. (LINK) In a June 29, 2007 blog post, Goldstein

continued his critique of the shortcoming of climate predictions. "Long range forecasts are

often short on reality. Sure, we have great mathematical equations applied to predicting our

weather. But not all is known about our weather. We don't understand how water vapor

comes into the equations, and that is a big deal. Heat sources represent other major

unknowns, after all, heat drives the atmosphere. We make assumptions about these

unknowns, and as long as these fit for the moment, the forecast looks good. But a slight

error will only magnify as the forecast is further extended," Goldstein wrote. "We can get

an idea of a trend, but specifics 30 days or 90 days out are seldom correct. Most of what we

know about the atmosphere was known a hundred years ago. No doubt, technology has

advanced faster than our basic understanding of the atmosphere. There are times when even

a 24-hour forecast leaves something to be desired," he concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-

Columbia, wrote in a May 18, 2007 email to EPW, "I don't believe that the climate change

issue is an emergency, or that there is compelling evidence to blame humanity for the

current warming. Warming is undoubtedly occurring, but it may have nothing (0%), or a

little (0-10%) to do with human activity." Lupo continued, "There is abundant scientific

evidence demonstrating that the climate changes cyclically on time-scales ranging from a

few years, to hundreds of thousands of years. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the

climate is not ‗stagnant' either. The climate has been relatively cool for the last few

hundred years and has warmed to levels which are at or below an inferred maximum

approximately 1000 years ago." "There are too many unknowns (e.g., the nature of solar

and internal variability). There are too many things we don't understand about the current

climate (e.g., the carbon cycle, atms - ocean interactions)," he added. Lupo has also

critiqued Gore's movie. "[Gore's] whole tone of this was, ‗We've got to make radical

changes in our lifestyle, and we have to make them now, and that's because the science on

the issue is settled,'" Lupo said in a July 13, 2006 article in the Columbia Tribune. "Well

that's not entirely the case. The science, for one thing, is not settled." Lupo disputes the

reason for warming temperatures and says recent temperatures are within natural

variability. "One thing I can agree with Gore on is the world is getting warmer," he said.

"One thing I can't agree on is the cause." (LINK)

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book An

Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity, and writer of the popular

newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist," dismisses the idea of a "consensus" on

man-made global warming. "We must all remember that scientific truth is not determined

by popular vote. The [UN] IPCC is severely tainted by politics," Sheahen wrote to EPW on

June 11, 2007. "No one disputes that the Earth has been warming over the last 150 years.

The controversy is over whether it's natural or anthropogenic (AGW)," he added. "I have

done computer modeling of physical and chemical phenomena, and I know two things very

well: first, your outputs will always be conditioned by the input assumptions you make at

the front end; and second, data always trumps theory. For a model to be valid, it has to

228

match the data. Given the observations of temperature variations during the 20th century,

you really can't make the case that mankind caused such erratic temperature swings,"

Sheahen concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Edward J. Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at

George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee

on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, played a prominent role in questioning the

statistical validity of Michael Mann's UN promoted "Hockey Stick" temperature

graph of last 1000 years of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Wegman and a panel

of statisticians conducted a third-party review the "Hockey Stick." According to a

November 28, 2006 article in Canada's National Post, Wegman found that Mann made a

basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical

methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors

in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."

Wegman found that Mann's "small group of climate scientists were working on their own,

largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false

assumptions." "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because

the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science," Wegman

said. (LINK) Wegman also noted how the peer-review process can be skewed by a cozy

group of scientists within a specific field. "Of course, if a given discipline area is small and

the authors in the area are tightly coupled, then this process is likely to turn up very

sympathetic referees. These referees may have coauthored other papers with a given

author. They may believe they know that author's other writings well enough that errors

can continue to propagate and indeed be reinforced," Wegman wrote in his report to the

U.S. Congress. (LINK)

Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London

and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling, has presented

evidence that Antarctic ice is growing. According to a December 15, 2006 article in

Canada's National Post, "Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in

Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency

satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded

that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more

likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming." "One cannot be

certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labeled 'the

contribution of anthropogenic warming,' " Wingham said, noting that the evidence is not

"favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming." Wingham and his

colleagues found that 72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass of Antarctica is

growing at the rate of 5 millimeters per year. "That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source,

of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will ‗lower global sea levels

by 0.08 mm' per year" the National Post article reported. (LINK) Wingham also co-

authored a March 2007 review of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets which found that the

current ―best estimate‖ of the contribution of polar ice loss to global sea level rise is 0.35

millimeters per year or less than an inch and a half over a century. (LINK) In a March 16,

2007 interview, Wingham further explained, "Most people don't realize that Antarctica is

so cold there isn't much melting going on.‖ (LINK) In 2005, Wingham emphasized the

uncertainty of blaming polar ice reductions on human activity. ―One cannot be certain,

because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labeled 'the

229

contribution of anthropogenic warming,'" Wingham said. (LINK) Wingham has also

asserted, ―There‘s a tendency today to associate every change that one sees in the ice on the

planet with global warming. Almost certainly some of the changes are nothing to do with

global warming at all but are connected with natural variability in the climate system.‖

Wingham, the lead investigator on the UK-led Cryosat spacecraft mission to monitor ice

sheets, added, ―I wouldn‘t be surprised if Cryosat will increase the confusion rather than

decrease it, because we will start to see natural processes in the climate system that we

don‘t see today.‖ (LINK)

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the website

"C02 Science" was established to debunk man-made climate fears. An April 11, 2007

report noted that current temperatures in Southern Greenland are "1.5°C colder than the

peak warmth of Medieval Times." (LINK) A June 6, 2007 scientific report by the Center

also debunked many of NASA's James Hansen's climate claims by finding "very little

evidence to justify [Hansen's] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a

„dangerous climate change.'" (LINK) The website, run by three scientists, agronomist

Dr. Craig Idso, physicist Dr. Sherwood Idso, and botanist Keith Idso, documents the

scientific evidence countering warming fears and offers evidence that the Earth was as

warm or warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. The "Medieval Warm Period

Project's" goal is to show that "approximately one thousand years ago, when the

atmosphere's CO2 concentration was approximately 25% lower than it is currently, earth's

near-surface air temperature was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it is today,

demonstrating that today's temperatures are not unnatural and need not be due to the

historical rise in the air's CO2 content." Scientific supporters of the Center for the Study of

Carbon Dioxide and Global change include: Climate expert Donald G. Baker of the

University of Minnesota; Biologist W. Dennis Clark of Arizona State University;

Chemist Alan Moghissi of the Institute for Regulatory Science; Meteorologist William

E. Reifsnyder (Deceased); Physics professor Clinton H. Sheehan of Ouachita Baptist

University in Arkansas; Zoologist Kenneth E. F. Watt; and Horticulturist Sylvan H.

Wittwer of the Michigan State University. (LINK)

Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather

Action noted the UN's IPCC fourth assessment had a "serious misrepresentation of solar

activity in the Report." Corbyn also ridiculed the idea that the IPCC summary for

policymakers was written by 2500 of the worlds "leading scientists" and said IPCC should

instead be called a "The IPCC Report by appointees of many governments." "In fact the

report is drafted and finalized by appointees of Governments who may have little or no

expertise in many of the wide ranging fields covered. It should further be noted that the

many scientists who undertake diligent measurement and observational or estimation work

which is used to indirectly support the report conclusions have generally no expertise or

locus around the key subject on which the findings of the report are actually based, namely

‗Climate Models.' This is the preserve of only a handful of people who generally are in

government funded institutions rather than more independent bodies," Corbyn wrote in an

open letter to UK government officials on February 11, 2007. "Perhaps the phrase ‗The

(IPCC) Report by appointees of many governments' would be fairer and should be insisted

on, and would not incorrectly imply informed confirmed agreement from many scientists

whose work, however excellent, does no such thing," Corbyn concluded. (LINK) Corbyn

also debunked a 2007 widely publicized no solar-climate link study on July 20, 2007. "In

230

desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change,

Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) cherry-pick data themselves.

Professor Lockwood's ‗refutation' of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is

as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of

data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world's temperature

follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun's activity. So what does he do? He ‗finds' that

for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall

in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of

necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that

there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback

processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is

faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather

warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of

solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail

and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23.

These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also

forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008.

What do the global warmers forecast?" Corbyn wrote. (LINK)

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The

Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International

Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS)

Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D'Aleo founded a new website and

organization skeptical of man-made global warming fears called International

Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project at Icecap.us on April 9, 2007.

D'Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist (CCM) and he was elected a Fellow and a

councilor with the AMS. D'Aleo's new website states the affiliated scientists "believe that

local problems with the station data and natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans

are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry

the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models

while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that

history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon." D'Aleo wrote on May 17, 2007,

"When I started really looking at the data I saw the signatures of urbanization and local

land use factor in global temperatures. I also saw that temperatures cycled over time and

those cycles correlated far better with the cycles in the sun and ocean temperatures than

with greenhouse gases, which would argue for a parallel increase not cyclical warming and

cooling." "I have recently done extensive correlative studies that convince me that the sun

and oceans are the real drivers and carbon dioxide is a bit player in the scheme of things. I

also believe the cyclical warming has peaked as the factors are changing and a cooling has

started or will soon do so, depending on what measure you use," he added. Other scientists

affiliated with D'Aleo on his Icecap.us website include: Astrophysicist Dr. Sallie

Baliunas, Deputy Director of Mount Wilson Observatory; Hurricane expert Dr.

William Gray, Associate Professor head of the Tropical Research Project at Colorado

State University; Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor of Oregon State

University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences; Marine Biologist Dr. Gary

D. Sharp of the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; former radiochemist

Alan Siddons, Florida State Climatologist Dr. James O'Brien, Director Emeritus of

the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University;

231

Climate scientist Dr. Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate

Systems Research. http://icecap.us

Oceanographer Dr. Willem de Lange of the department of Earth and Ocean Sciences

at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has published numerous peer-reviewed

papers in the areas of coastal processes and climatic hazards; tsunami and storm

surge prediction and mitigation; wave-induced sediment transport. He has also

declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears. "The Greenhouse Effect is a climate

feedback mechanism - it modifies climate change but does not drive it," de Lange wrote to

EPW on December 18, 2007. "Earth's climate is a complex system that is continually

changing at different temporal and spatial scales - it may change abruptly, or gradually and

affect regions or the whole globe. The primary driver of Earth's Climate at Human time

scales is the quantity and quality of Solar radiation - the total amount, and the distribution

of radiation across different wavelengths," de Lange explained. "Humans affect climate in a

variety of ways - Human impacts are greatest at the micro-scale (your office), and diminish

at larger spatial and temporal scales (impact at a global scale over the last 100 years is

small - as far as I can tell it tends to disappear into the measurement errors). Emissions of

greenhouse gases are a minor contribution to climate feedback as the Greenhouse Effect

operates between physically constrained limits," he wrote. "Catastrophic climate changes in

the next century are unlikely based on observational data," he concluded. (LINK)

Senior Meteorologist Dr. Joe Sobel of Accuweather, winner of the American

Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year, asserted that climate

change is nothing new. "The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, that is a

fact of the earth's existence," Sobel said on January 11, 2007. Sobel has 35 years

experience at Accuweather and has also been a member of the American Meteorology

Society since 1966. "Only 10,000 years ago -- which is geologically speaking is like [the

snap of a finger] -- we were in the midst of an ice age," Sobel said. "There is not much

doubt that climate changes and that climate will continue to change," Sobel reiterated. "The

question is what is causing it. It is totally a naturally cycle? Is it totally human induced? I

suspect the truth lies somewhere in between," he concluded. (LINK) Sobel also lamented

the National Hurricane Center's new tropical storm naming policy because he believes it

results in false claims of global warming related increases in storms. "Back in the old

days... and I'm only talking 5 years or so ago... we did not name sub-tropical storms.

Names were only given to storms that were deemed to be truly tropical. In the last few

years, there have been a number of sub-tropical storms named. Those named storms go into

the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and

consequently increase the average number of storms per year," Sobel wrote on May 9, 2007

in his blog. "It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing

number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is

increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It's because we are

mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples!" he added. (LINK)

Economist Dr. Owen McShane, chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand based

International Climate Science Coalition, slammed "consensus" science on global

warming on April 21, 2007. "There is no scientific evidence to justify the wild claims of

doom and catastrophe that have made headlines in recent weeks," McShane said. "All we

have is a scenario promoted by government funded scientists who are part of the United

232

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer modeling

that has been slammed by many independent climatologists around the world as lacking

any scientific validity or credibility," he said. "People generally seem not to be aware that

the UN defines ‗climate change' as only the effects of climate that result from human

activity. It ignores the natural drivers that have governed the global climate for millions of

years past. For reasons that have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with

science or meteorological observations and records, the present Government committed

New Zealand to the Kyoto Protocol that even its most ardent supporters admit will not

reduce global warming," McShane asserted. "What Kyoto will do, like the sale of

indulgences in the Middle Ages, is make people and organizations pay for emissions of

carbon dioxide by buying credits from countries like Russia that have vast tracts of forested

land," he concluded. (LINK)

Anthropologist Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores

University in the UK who has published peer-reviewed studies, debunked a 2004 study

published in Science which Gore cited in his movie. The study examined 928 peer-

reviewed studies and found a virtual 100% consensus on man-made global warming. But

Peiser's own analysis found that the study's "entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data

set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what [the author] has

called the 'consensus view.'" "In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention

anthropogenic climate change," Peiser added. (LINK) Peiser, who edits a climate change

Internet newsletter, has also noted that the media ignores the scientists and studies that cast

doubt on climate alarmism. "Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that

questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," Peiser told the New York

Times on March 13, 2007. (LINK) Peiser noted how science has been overtaken with an

"apocalyptic" view of the future climate. "Not since the apocalyptic consensus of the

Middle Ages has the prognostication of impending doom and global catastrophe on the

basis of mathematical modeling been as widely accepted as today," Peiser noted in an April

18, 2007 presentation to European Parliament on climate change. "Ironically, these

apocalyptic predictions of the future are politically sanctioned at the same time as a

growing number of scientists are recognizing that environmental and economic computer

modeling of an inherently unpredictable future is illogical and futile," Peiser said. "Over

the last 10 years, the editors of the world's leading science journals such as Science and

Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New

Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time,

they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus," Peiser noted.

(LINK)

Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA's

National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a

reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent

hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to a February 23, 2007

article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that "the 1926-1935 period was worse

for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad." Landsea asserted

that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. "It's

not a trend, it's a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy," Landsea said. He did say that

a warming world would only make hurricanes "5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We

can't measure it if it's that small." The article said Landsea blamed Gore's An Inconvenient

233

Truth, for "persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane

frequency and strength." (LINK) Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the

IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned

from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with

Hurricane science. "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to

which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have

raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my

concerns," Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005 public letter. "My view is that when people

identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far

outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate

change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy," he

continued. "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view

as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,"

Landsea added. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Glen Shaw, a Professor of Physics at the Geophysical Institute

at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who was skeptical of global cooling fears in

1970s, now calls the current warming scare "massively political." Shaw noted in a April 22,

2007 article in News Miner that "a significantly large fraction of the science being done on

global climate change is perhaps not wrong, but not enough, a little naive, repetitive and

incorporating only a fraction of the complexity required to base policy on." "And the issue

of global warming has become massively political. Special interests abound. Try getting

funding while being a skeptic," he added. Shaw also explained how he ran up against the

coming ice age scare three decades ago. "In the 1970s as a young scientist at the

Geophysical Institute I wrote passionate letters complaining that for the first time in the

geologic era man was changing the atmosphere of the planet. I argued that continued

dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be associated with a warming of the

entire Earth and pled for attention to this matter. The letters were ignored. They were

ignored because in the 1970s, Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York

Times, and countless books and articles were warning of the dangers of global cooling.

Things have changed." Shaw concluded: "There is much more in climate science that we

simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a

few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital

movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and

end these spectacular events. We do not know." (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas

Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas and a

UN IPCC reviewer, debunked the notion that human C02 emissions are driving climate

change. "Overall, the earth's climate has been cooling for 60 million years, but that is only

an average -- temperature goes up and down constantly," Gerhard said in a January article

in a National Policy Analysis publication. "Depending on the period in earth's history that

is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is

warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points," Gerhard stated. Gerhard also

noted that C02 only represents about ¼ of one percent of the total greenhouse gas effect,

"hardly a device to drive the massive energy system of earth's climate." (LINK) Gerhard

also wrote on August 17, 2006: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global

warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims

234

in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting

at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not

correlate with recorded human history." Gerhard concluded that "the current climate

changes were entirely explainable by geologic history." Gerhard has published more than

150 papers and authored the 2001 book "Geological Perspectives of Global Climate

Change."

Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional

Scientific Achievement Medal, and currently principal research scientist at the

University of Alabama in Huntsville, questioned how much scientists really know about

the climate. "CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40

percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth.

But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through

sizeable gyrations all by itself," Spencer wrote in a February 26, 2007 article in the New

York Post. "The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's

climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation," Spencer, currently a principal

research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space

Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama, wrote. "In fact, for the amount of

solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a ‗preferred' average temperature,

damping out swings beyond one degree or so. I believe that, through various negative

feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere ‗decides' how much of the available sunlight will be

allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average

temperature will be," he concluded. Spencer has published more than two dozen scientific

papers in peer-reviewed journals. (LINK)

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation

who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics, refuted climate alarmism in

an op-ed titled "No scientific basis for global warming contention." Kemm was also

honored with a 2003 National Science and Technology Forum Award for sustained

outstanding contributions to Science and Technology. "The global-warming mania

continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people

look for issues or events to blame on global warming," Kemm wrote in an April 27, 2007

op-ed in South Africa's Engineering News. "Former US Veep Al Gore is being totally

simplistic in his movie by just saying that Mount Kilimanjaro's loss of ice-cap volume is a

sign of global warming. Most of Al's movie exhibited the same absence of genuine science,

and rather presented itself as part of an election campaign," Kemm explained, while noting

that warming temperatures did not cause a ice-cap melt on Kilimanjaro. "It is also a

scientific fact that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of

Kilimanjaro. Satellites have been measuring the regional temperature since 1979 in the free

troposphere between 1 000-m and 8 000-m altitude and they show no troposphere warming

in that area. None. So what is causing the ice cap to melt? The answer appears to be trees,

or rather lack of them," Kemm wrote. "...Since the locals have cut down so many trees over

the last century, there is much less wet air moving up the mountain than there used to be, so

less ice forms at the top," he added. (LINK)

Economist David Henderson, a Professor at the Westminster Business School and

former Chief economist for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

235

Development, derided the UN IPCC process in a presentation in Brussels on April 18,

2007. "I believe that there is a problem of unwarranted trust in the IPCC process and in the

role of the Panel itself, a problem which the Stern Review shows no awareness of. In peer-

reviewed work that the IPCC has drawn on, the authors concerned have failed to make due

disclosure of data, sources and procedures, and the IPCC has not required them to do so,"

Henderson said. Noting that he believed the IPCC "has acquired what is effectively a

monopoly position," Henderson said the IPCC was "far from being a model of rigor,

inclusiveness and impartiality." "To begin with, the very idea of creating a single would-be

authoritative fount of wisdom is itself open to doubt. Even if the IPCC process were

indisputably and consistently rigorous, objective and professionally watertight, it is

imprudent for governments to place virtually exclusive reliance, in matters of extraordinary

complexity where huge uncertainties prevail, on a single source of analysis and advice and

a single process of inquiry. Viewed in this light, the very notion of setting consensus as an

aim appears as questionable if not ill-judged," he said. Henderson also dismissed the Stern

Review as "a heavily biased, exercise in speculative alarmism" and urged governments to

"think again" about the focus on C02 reductions. "Rather than pursuing as a matter of

urgency ambitious and costly targets for curbing CO2 emissions, [governments] should

take prompt steps to ensure that they and their citizens are more fully and more objectively

informed and advised," he said. (LINK)

UN IPCC Contributing Author Dr. Aynsley Kellow is a former professor of Social

Sciences of the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University who

has presented papers to the Australian Academy of Science and co-authored the book

International Environmental Policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process.

Kellow, who was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC's fourth assessment report

which covered "Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment," questioned the premise of

the IPCC's gloomy future predictions. ―They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news.

They‘re looking for bad news in all of this,‖ Kellow said according to an April 23, 2007

article in Spiked-Online. "The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the

nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA

experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions

about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you're

questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models," Kellow said. ―I‘m

not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in

the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC

report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be,‖ Kellow said.

―The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the

exercise and sign-off on it ultimately,‖ Kellow said, noting the politicization of the process.

Kellow also asserted that the whole Kyoto Protocol approach to greenhouse gas emissions

does not favor developing nations. ―The emphasis on CO2 suits largely post-1990

decarbonized European economies worried about justifying high levels of taxation, energy

security policies and so on. It doesn‘t suit those with ample coal supplies at a quarter of the

cost of producing coal in Europe – which includes India and China. There‘s a very

European slant to Kyoto,‖ Kellow concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, co-author of the book

The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection (LINK), and chief

236

science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute, authored a comprehensive

November 2007 study that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Physical

Geography. The study concluded: "[L]ong-term climate change is driven by solar

insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic and luminosity

variations... There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse

gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed

glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in

global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650 thousand years. ... [C]hanges in

solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative

forcings of CO2 and CH4 by several-fold, and ... [therefore] regional responses to solar

insolation forcing will decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes." (LINK) Soon

also co-authored a November 2007 study that found mankind's emissions are not

harming the atmosphere. The paper, co-authored with Dr. Art Robinson and Noah

Robinson, was published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and was

titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study

reported: "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences

of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases

during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's

weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant

growth." The study also found, "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis

that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green

house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global

temperatures, weather, or landscape." (LINK)

CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that

there is a "consensus" about mankind's role in global warming. "What is the truth about

global warming? As you have seen in this program, it depends on who you talk to. As

decision makers ponder our future as it relates to climate change, we need to keep asking

questions. Because an informed public should have a role in determining the ultimate truth

about global warming," the Emmy Award winning Baskerville concluded in an April 28,

2007 TV special he hosted called "The Truth about Global Warming." Baskerville's climate

TV special clearly portrayed the science as not settled on man's role in climate change as he

featured interviews with prominent skeptics, including MIT climate scientist Richard

Lindzen and environmental economist Dennis Avery, co-author of the 2006 book

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Neil Frank, former director of the

National Hurricane Center, dismissed fears of catastrophic man-made global warming.

"It's a hoax," Frank told the Washington Post on May 28, 2006 regarding doomsday

climate scenarios. According to the article, "[Frank] says cutting carbon emissions would

wind up hurting poor people. I ask if he thinks more CO2 in the air would be a good thing.

‗Exactly! Maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know.'" Frank

also lamented that the UN's IPCC does not reach out to many skeptics of global warming

like himself. Frank has published a variety of professional papers on tropical meteorology

and served the chairman of the International Hurricane Committee. (LINK)

Polar bear expert Dennis Compayre, formerly of the conservation group Polar Bears

International, has studied the bears for almost 30 years in their natural habitat and is

237

working on a new UK documentary about the bears. Compayre disputed fears of a

potential global warming threat to polar bears. A December 7, 2007 article in the UK Daily

Mail reported, "Dennis Compayre raises bushy grey eyebrows as he listens to the

environmentalists predict the polar bear's demise. ‗They (environmentalists) say the

numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears

as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a

kid.'" According to the article, Compayre, who was born and raised in the Arctic town, "is

among those who eye the new ‗experts' in town with deep suspicion. Compayre added,

‗Churchill [in Northern Canada] is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears

and thinner bears. They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them

really have the bears' best interests at heart. The bear industry in Churchill is big bucks, and

what better way to keep people coming than to tell them they'd better hurry to see the

disappearing bears.'" The article also noted, "To some Churchill residents, who base their

opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, [the polar

bear's demise] is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious

ends." (LINK) [Note: Compayre is not included in total count in this report.]

David Dilley, founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc., rejects the idea of man-

made global warming. Dilley's research found that the current global warming

episode is a "Natural Recurring Cycle." "Dilley demonstrated that the current global

warming episode is a „Natural Recurring Cycle,' and that this current cycle will begin to

diminish as early as 2015, and no later than 2040," according to an April 6, 2007 press

release. "Dilley's 15-years of ongoing climate research have uncovered a very powerful

external forcing mechanism that causes shifts in regional weather cycles, and the world's

climate. This forcing mechanism is called the ‗Primary Forcing Trigger Mechanism,' or

PFM. The PFM is a cyclical forcing mechanism that can be forecast years in advance, or

even traced back through the earth's climate history. The major influence of the PFM on

the earth's climate is that it causes the world's dominating regional high-pressure systems to

shift position, or become displaced from their normal seasonal position," noted the press

release on the website of Global Weather Oscillations. "Dilley states that the current global

warming is without a doubt the result of a known external "natural" forcing cycle.

According to Dilley, most government officials, climatologists and meteorologists are

looking only at the increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels over the past

50 to 100 years. But when you take into account nearly 40 other global warming episodes

over the past 5 thousand years, it becomes very apparent that CO2 levels cannot be the

forcing mechanism that has caused global warming," the press release stated. (LINK)

Biologist Josef Reichholf, who heads the Vertebrates Department at the National

Zoological Collection in Munich, rejected climate fears and asserted global warming will

be beneficial to humans and animals, particularly polar bears. Fears of mass species

extinctions because of global warming are "nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is

no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that

warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between

biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the

regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly,

the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species," Reichholf said in an interview

with Der Spiegel on May 8, 2007. Reichholf, a professor of ecology and conservation at

both of Munich's two universities, and author of the book A Short Natural History of the

238

Last Millennium, continued, "As recently as the 1960s, people were more concerned about

a new ice age -- and that would indeed pose a great danger to us. The most catastrophic

eras were those in which the weather became worse, not phases of warmer climates.

Precisely because we have to feed a growing population on this planet, we should in fact

embrace a warmer climate. In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival," he

said. "How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? Seals are the polar bear's most

important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every

spring. That's why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not

because it's getting warmer. Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is

found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and

North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human

beings, not the climate," he said. Fear of spreading malaria is also unfounded, according to

Reichholf. "That's another one of those myths. Many people truly believe that malaria will

spread as temperatures rise. But malaria isn't even a true tropical disease. In the 19th

century, thousands of people in Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and even

Scandinavia, died of malaria, even though they had never gone abroad. That's because this

disease was still prevalent in northern and central Europe in previous centuries. We only

managed to eliminate malaria in Europe by quarantining the sick, improving hygiene and

draining swamps. That's why I consider it virtually impossible that malaria would return to

us purely because of climate change. If it does appear, it'll be because it has been brought in

somewhere," he said. "There have been much faster climate fluctuations in the past, which

did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species. As a biologist, I can tell you

that only the fewest animals and plants are accustomed to rigid climate conditions," he

added. (LINK)

Emmy award-winning Chief Meteorologist for an NBC affiliate Bill Meck, who has

earned Seals of Approval from both the American Meteorological Society and the

National Weather Association, questioned the notion that there is a scientific "consensus"

about global warming. "If the science is ‗clear,' and there is no more ‗debate,' why is there

still a tremendous amount of our tax dollars being allocated to research (and a PR campaign

for that matter)? We don't still go around researching why the Earth is round, or why the

sky is blue. If it's a done deal, why are folks still trying to justify or prove it?" Meck asked

in a February 13, 2007 blog. (LINK) Meck, who produced a TV series called the "Global

Warming Myth," praised the March 13, 2007 article in the New York Times for debunking

much of the science presented in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. "There are many wonderful

nuggets of information to pull from [the New York Times article], but file away the bits

about how there may not be the ‗consensus of scientists' you so often hear about. Also

check the info toward the end about the natural climate cycles. That is my contention all

along. There have been natural climate cycles, always have, always will," Meck explained

in a March 12, 2007 blog. "Also take note how there are very few times when the

temperature hangs around the ‗average', it's either warm or cold balancing out as an

‗average'. Our current warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age, just over 100 years

ago, when it was REALLY cold. Our current warm spell is simply balancing it out. Now

go enjoy the 70's in March, guilt free!" he wrote. (LINK)

Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry,

distrusts climate computer models and believes the models do not adequately account for

water in the atmosphere. According to the May 14, 2007 issue of The Nation magazine,

239

Hertzberg said water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor "is

overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun.... Carbon

dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a

hurricane." The article explained Hertzberg's views: "Water covers 71 percent of Earth's

surface. Compared with the atmosphere, there's 100 times more CO2 in the oceans,

dissolved as carbonate. As the post-glacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some

of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda." Hertzberg is quoted

saying, "The greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards. It is the warming of

the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." The article

noted, "In vivid confirmation of that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last

750,000 years, CO2 changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to

2,600 years." (LINK) & (LINK)

Climate scientist Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a co-author of the 2005 book Shattered

Consensus: The True State of Global Warming and a research scientist at the

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric

and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado, questions the accuracy of climate

models. "Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current

understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand

the midlatitudes' response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be

identified and understood," Frauenfeld wrote in "Shattered Consensus." Frauenfeld, a

Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, added,

"Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we

begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape

policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain." (LINK)

Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia wrote a

scientific paper titled "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response" in

Energy and Environment in 2006 (LINK) showing that solar cycles are more important

than C02 levels. In a May 2007 updated paper, "The Past and Future of Climate" Archibald

predicts an "imminent cooling" by 2030 based on solar cycles states. "Most rural

temperature records in the United States were set in the 1930s and 1940s. Greenland had its

highest recorded temperatures in the 1930s and has been cooler since," Archibald wrote.

"The 1.5° temperature decline from the late 1950s to the mid-70s was due to a weak solar

cycle 20 after a strong solar cycle 19," Archibald explains. Archibald also noted that the

Medieval Warm Period was originally recognized by the UN IPCC to have been warmer

than current temperatures, but it "become inconvenient to the IPCC, so they haven't

mentioned it since." Archibald asserted, "Anthropogenic warming is real, it is also

miniscule." He explained, "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, increased

atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.1°."

"There is no correlation in the geologic record between atmospheric carbon dioxide and

global temperature. The Earth went into an ice age 450 million years ago despite a level of

atmospheric carbon dioxide that is ten times what it is today," Archibald wrote. "There are

no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial," he added. "Anthropogenic Global

Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even

from generation to generation," he concluded. (LINK)

240

Physics professor Kjell Aleklett of the Department of Radiation Sciences and the

Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group at Uppsala University in Sweden asserts that severe climate change is unlikely before the Earth runs out of fossil fuels.

Writing in a June 5, 2007 post at Australia's Online Opinion, Aleklett suggests that "the

combined volumes of these fuels are insufficient to cause the changes in climate." Aleklett

believes that "compared with what has been previously asserted, we are going to be much

better off in terms of carbon dioxide emissions" because the Earth is nearing "the

maximum production rate for oil, or ‗Peak Oil.'" He concludes by noting "we must discuss

and dispute the temperature increases that the IPCC-families indicate and the fossil fuel

resources that the IPCC uses in its prognoses. We need new estimates of future temperature

increases based on realistic expectations of oil, natural gas and coal use. Only then can we

make sensible decisions for our future. The world's greatest future problem is that too many

people must share too little energy." (LINK)

Anthony Watts, former meteorologist for KHSL-TV, a CBS-TV affiliate in Redding,

California, has examined 460 of the 1221 official climatic weather stations in the 48

lower states, and discovered multiple irregularities that are causing temperature data

to skew higher than it should. Watts, who publishes a website devoted to investigating

surface stations, (LINK) believes his research casts doubt on NOAA's current and historical

temperature data reports. "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global

warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-

measurement environment," Watts told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on June 17, 2007.

Watts examined temperature stations that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric

Administration's (NOAA) uses as part of its National Climatic Data Center. The NCDC

has about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country. Watts, who

founded the web site surfacestations.org, has made it his mission to quality check weather

stations to see if the data is being accurately captured. (LINK) Watts noted one such

weather station in California was "surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10

feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt reflecting

sunlight/heat. And worst of all, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings

vent warm air within 10 feet of the sensor." Watts concluded, "I can tell you with certainty,

the temperature data from this station is useless." Watt's extensive data research was noted

by Meteorologist Joseph Conklin on August 10, 2007: (LINK) "The (U.S.) National

Climate Data Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing

network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization

has placed many sites in unsuitable locations - on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn

barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!

The data and approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. If the

global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use change

issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much

less of any background trend." (LINK)

Dr. Wilson Flood, of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a chemistry education

consultant, wrote that it is an "unproven hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas levels are

largely responsible for climate change" in a June 27, 2007 letter to the Scotsman

newspaper. "Further Met Office data also shows that global temperatures have actually

fallen slightly in the last decade and have shown no statistically significant rise since 1990.

Just to cap it all, NASA studies show that atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas

241

methane are falling, not rising. All of the above are easily verifiable and fly in the face of

the conventional wisdom. But, hey, we shouldn't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way

of what politicians believe, should we?" Flood wrote. (LINK) In the May 2006 edition of

Education in Chemistry, Flood explained, "Of all the scientific disciplines, chemistry

equips us best to grasp the essentials of the global warming debate. After all global

warming comes down to the absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules, coupled

with the mole concept which allows us to convert tonnes of fossil fuels into tonnes of

carbon dioxide." Flood continued, "Those claiming that the effects of global warming

from additional greenhouse gases can already be detected, I believe, are deluding

themselves. It would take 5.5Wm-2 to produce a rise of 1K and an 11K rise (sometimes

claimed) would need a massive 55W of additional energy for every square metre of the

Earth's surface. There simply is not that amount of energy available still to be absorbed

from the Earth's spectrum, most of which is largely saturated anyway owing to absorption

by carbon dioxide and water vapour." Flood said, "Those who promote apocalyptic global

warming claim that the sensitivity is much higher than 0.18K, some claiming 0.75K and

even 1.5K.6 These claims are mainly based on a postulated magnifying effect of water

vapour but, from a consideration of infrared absorption spectroscopy in relation to the

spectrum emitted by a body at 288K, it is not clear how such large values can be achieved."

Flood concluded by noting that the proponents of a climate catastrophe are out "to frighten

the population." (LINK)

Senior Meteorologist Peter McGurk, with WSI Corporation, a provider of weather-

driven business solutions to such clients as CNN, FOX, NBC, American Airlines,

Delta, and FedEX, and formerly a Senior International Meteorologist for the former

Weather Services Corporation, dismissed fears of "a global Armageddon in the making."

After analyzing temperature data for U.S. states, McGurk, who holds a Master of Science

degree in Geophysics from the University of Chicago, explained in a June 29, 2007 report,

"As far as extreme maxes are concerned, not only is the overall average greater during the

first half of the last century, but 2/3 of the monthly averages are also greater during the

period 1900-1949. Only for the months of March, June, October and December were they

warmer during the period 1950-1999." McGurk concluded, "I suspect that if we were truly

headed for a Global Meltdown, that this data would vastly different than it is currently.

Namely, we would be seeing many more record state maxes occurring more frequently

during the recent past that the distant past. Additionally, we should not be seeing more state

record extreme mins set during the second half of the past century." He added, "For 3 out

of the four seasons there were more record maxes during the first half of the last century

and more record mins during the second half of the 1900s. From an extreme state monthly

record perspective, hardly a global Armageddon in the making." (LINK) & (LINK) " I

don't feel that climate modeling is advanced enough to tell us with any degree of certainty

what our planet's climate will be like one to three centuries from now. While I agree that

there may have been some slight global warming during the past 150 years, there is still

plenty of scientific debate as to what factors are responsible. Certainly the human race does

influence the climate here on Earth, but we cannot say with any certainty to what extent

this influence is when compared to other natural cycles of climate variability," McGurk

wrote in a May 18 e-mail to EPW.

Chief Meteorologist Tom Chisholm of WMTW ABC Portland, Maine, who has also

been on camera on The Weather Channel, wrote in an e-mail to

242

EPW, "Variable processes in nature exist on a continuum. Any statement, concluding an

absolute fixed state of variable, dissipative structures is folly." Chisholm continued, "This

is true concerning accelerating and deaccelerating mathematical equations representing the

earth's heat budget. Initializing an absolute measure of the earth's energy

is impossible. Therefore, ‗computer models' that global warming pundits exercise and

represent as predictively accurate, over long periods of time are, at best, suspect." (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, in

Palestine, Texas, declared himself a skeptic. "My belief is the planetary climate system is

an ever changing and evolving one. The climate and geological state of the earth did not

develop to this point and time and stop the clock," Hays wrote in a May 18, 2007 e-mail to

EPW. Hays, who authored a study on African waves and their development into

tropicalkin cyclones, continued, "The climate and the shape of our continents will continue

to change. Yes we are in a cycle of warming, and we should protect our planet from

pollution, but we will continue to go through cycles and changes no matter what. In the

future there will be another cooling phase as our climate continues to take its sinusoidal

trek through history."

Senior Meteorologist Jeff Halblaub of WSI Corporation which provides weather-

driven business solutions to such clients as CNN, FOX, NBC, American Airlines,

Delta, and FedEX, rejected man-made global warming fears. "It is my firm belief that

the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, politicians, some

scientists, multinational corporations, environmentalists, moviemakers, and news media are

making false claims regarding the effects of humans on the atmosphere," Halblaub wrote in

a May 18, 2007 e-mail to EPW. "As recently as three decades ago, Newsweek Magazine

reported cataclysmic climate damage would occur from "global cooling." Satellite

observations, which survey the entire Earth (which is mostly water), show no temperature

change at all since the late 1970s. Mankind changes climates on small scales through urban

sprawl and other land-use modifications; human impact on global temperatures is miniscule

compared to atmospheric, oceanic, geologic, and solar anomalies and phenomena,"

Halblaub wrote. "Carbon Dioxide is a ‗trace gas.' Per unit volume, CO2 is not even one

tenth of one percent of the gases present. Water vapor is up to 114 times more abundant

than CO2. It has a much greater effect as a greenhouse gas. In truth, climate researchers are

taking a very small increase in CO2 and projecting it into the future using climate models.

These models cannot even reproduce past climates. The results of these modeling studies

are overinflated and inaccurate temperature increases. The ‗debate' on human-induced

global warming is not over; there never was any. The ‗science' was decided before the

research ever began," he added.

Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of

State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to

review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979, rejected man-made climate

fears. Durrenberger says Gore's "misinformed" scientific assertions motivated him to get

actively involved in the climate debate. "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and

prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the

misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have

decided that ‗real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the

problem. I hope by writing a book that I have contributed to the effort to combat the

243

‗alarmists' who are trying to harm this country," Durrenberger wrote to EPW on May 19,

2007. "Put me on the list of skeptical members," Durrenberger, who is also a meteorologist,

wrote. He also served as a member of a science panel for the National Academy of

Sciences.

Meteorologist John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel and former

meteorologist for ABC's Good Morning America, slammed the "recent political hype

and media frenzy" about man-made global warming fears. "The recent political hype and

media frenzy about ‗Global Warming' is, in my studied opinion, an unprecedented episode

of mass extremism and silliness," Coleman wrote in a May 19, 2007 email to EPW. "I

believe that fifty years from now, serious scientists, political leaders and news editors will

look back with astonished embarrassment at the irresponsibility of their predecessors. Its

not that the Earth's atmosphere isn't somewhat warmer in 2007 than it was in 1907. It is. It

is not that mankind's civilization isn't contributing to warming. It is. But the recent

warming trend is not extreme or wildly accelerating or irreversible or destined to destroy

our way of life. As I see it, the predictions of future catastrophic consequences of warming

are totally without foundation," Coleman explained. "Much of what minor warming has

been underway in recent years is the result of natural fluctuations in the heat output of the

Sun and from other natural cycles. Much of the man made warming is from Urban Heat

Islands and is well documented. Many other human activities from agriculture to aviation

are having some impact on climate. These changes are worthy of study, reasonable concern

and corrective action. All of that is taking place. But as for the dire predictions that

dominate the political and media coverage today, there are serious doubts in my mind about

their validity," he continued. "The historic data on which many of the ‗studies' are based

seems to have been selected and massaged to produce the investigators biased

predetermined conclusions. And, the notion that the historic measurements are accurate

within less than a degree of two is questionable. The old instruments were crude by any

modern standards. And inference of past temperatures from other environmental traces

seem to me to be subject to significant error. All computer forecast models require a basic

set of assumptions. In many cases the bias of the investigators seem to have produced

assumptions that have little reasonable basis," he concluded. (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Bob Breck of WVUE-TV in New Orleans rejected man-made

climate fears. "As you well know, those of us older than 50 recall the same type of scare

tactics back in the late 60s & 70s. The ‗consensus' of scientists back then were warning of

global cooling and the possible beginning of a new Little Ice Age. How could so many

brilliant scientists have been so wrong?" Breck wrote to EPW on May 20, 2007. "The new

(translation-younger) ‗consensus' of scientists want you to believe that they have better

data, that they have computer modeling and (worse yet) they're smarter! They want us to

believe that the current warming will continue forever, yet there is nothing in the

climatological history of our planet that indicates this will be the case. On the

contrary, there is ample evidence to explain the current warming, that CO2 is NOT the

driver, and that other factors (deep ocean current cycles, solar energy fluctuations) are more

responsible," Breck explained. "The media has decided that the facts, other than carbon

dioxide being the driver, are not sexy enough to warrant any coverage. I hope there are

enough members of Congress who remember the global cooling scare of 30-40 years ago,"

Breck concluded.

244

Atmospheric scientist Bruce Schwoegler, former U.S. Navy meteorologist and Boston

broadcast meteorologist, rejected man-made climate fears. "It is my contention that too

many variables cloud the global warming broth that has boiled over. A rational approach

and lower setting on the hot stove political and media agenda is in order," Schwoegler

wrote to EPW on May 29, 2007. Schwoegler, who was awarded the American

Meteorological Society's Outstanding Broadcast Meteorologist service award, is also an

investigator with an international team studying environmental impacts of a Caribbean

volcano. "Yes, significant global warming is a concern, and there is a likely relationship

between human induced impacts and climate change. But has anyone truly ascertained the

scope, depth and outcome in our planetary system which is rife with natural checks and

balances? Quantifying them and resultant interactions remains mostly a game of my theory

versus yours," he explained. "Urbanization's heat islands, volcanic activity, solar

fluctuations, historical climate cycles, oceanic and green canopy carbon budgets and the

magnitude of artificial irrigation are but a few of the more blatant examples of puzzle

pieces not yet in place. Even proliferating aircraft contrails and changes in measuring

techniques and sites must be considered. All comprise a cloudy soup that should be set to

low as I am not yet prepared to eat," he concluded.

NASA consultant and former space shuttle engineer John L. Casey of the Florida

based Verity Management Services Inc. (VMS), has found solar influences on the

climate dominate. An April 3, 2007 press release from VMS touted "A new theory for how

the sun contributes to the heating and especially the cooling of the Earth." The release from

Casey, who has conducted satellite launch studies for the U.S. Department of Defense,

explained, "Discovered in the process of doing research into a book on natural disasters he

is writing, the theory uncovered by Casey has identified two important cycles of the sun.

One is between 90 and 100 years long and another 207 years long, that he says are the

primary cycles for weather patterns in the US and possibly around the globe. ‗The surprise,'

said Casey ‗was the near 100% match between low temperatures and solar activity lows

between now and as far back as 900 AD. A correlation this strong is rare and exciting. The

data is reliable enough for me to call an end to the current 207 year or ‗Bi-Centennial' cycle

with the next solar sunspot period, and with it the start of a new period of declining

temperatures.' If the theory's fundamental cycles play out as he predicts, over the next ten

years we will be well on our way into a global cool down. He estimates by the peak of the

next solar sunspot cycle which he calculates for the year 2012, there should be strong signs

the cooler period has started in accordance with the relational cycle theory. He also says

signs of a Bi-Centennial cycle changeover are already occurring although modestly. His

observations are based on lower sunspot counts and year to year comparisons between

2006 and 2007."

Meteorologist Larry Cosgrove said on Fox News Channel on January 19, 2007, "I do not

espouse the global kool-aid line of the American Meteorological Society. Now, I like many

people, believe in global warming. You can't refute that. Temperatures are warming around

the globe. But, the question is what's causing it. Is it purely man made as the American

Meteorological Society and [the Weather Channel's Dr. [Heidi] Cullen espouse or is it a

combination of events, namely what's happening on the earth and ‗some help' so to speak,

from man kind?" (LINK)

245

Nuclear Scientist Dr. Michael R. Fox, who holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry and is a

science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, dismisses global warming

"hysteria." "Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on

fear, political agendas, and computer models that don't agree with each other or the climate,

rather than hard-nosed evidence and science. The climate forces which have led to the

estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to

the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2

emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can't be true for several

reasons," Fox wrote on July 18, 2007. "The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of

the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3

percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the

manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1

percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate

variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29,

2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-

made CO2 emissions occurred. The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice

Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously,

other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it. Now we have

learned much more based upon observations of cosmic radiation, their sources, and the

sun's magnetic fields, combined and new discoveries in the laboratory. A new and more

comprehensive understanding of our planetary environment has emerged. This gives us a

scientifically defensible explanation of both global warming and cooling," Fox explained.

"Thanks to some recent excellent experimental work in physics by those such as Danish

scientist Henrik Svensmark, we now know that cosmic rays and some of the debris from

nuclear collisions with atoms in the atmosphere are directly involved with the initiating

mechanisms of cloud formation. Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are

formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by

the Sun's magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that

field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer

clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer. Today the sun's magnetic field is

more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s

during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called

the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak," Fox added. "What

lies ahead are some exciting times in climate physics and our understanding of the

environment. Unexplained findings in geological and climate histories are now being

explained by these new lines of inquiry. It appears that the Sun's magnetic field has had a

stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain.

Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who

claim that "the debate of climate science is over" have been shown once again to be very

wrong," he concluded. (LINK)

Biologist Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who has been a field biologist in remote parts of

Africa and Madagascar and published in international and Australian scientific

journals, dismisses climate fears. "I've always considered it somewhat pretentious to

believe humans can actually stop climate change, given the earth's climate has always

changed," Marohasy wrote on May 25, 2007 in an article entitled "Cooling Heels on Global

Warming." (LINK) She also critiqued Gore's presentation of climate science. "Never once

during this so-called documentary does Gore acknowledge that there is potential for an

246

alternative thesis on global warming and the role of carbon dioxide. All dissent is met with

ridicule and/or name calling. Al Gore certainly doesn't appear to understand the potential

value of hypotheses testing. Instead Gore reduces global warming to a moral issue and a

contest between the good guys, which according to Gore includes all of the world's climate

scientists, and the so-bad so-called skeptics, who he suggests are all hired guns," Marohasy

wrote on September 16, 2006. (LINK) She has also stated, "As a consequence of the

burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently increasing. There is

no evidence, however, to suggest this will bring doom or that, by signing the Kyoto

Protocol, Australia would make a significant difference to global carbon dioxide levels or

to the rate of climate change." (LINK)

Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and

Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former

member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural

Disasters, rejected the so-called "consensus" view on global warming. "Mix Al Gore, polar

bears, Kilimanjaro, Katrina, the Royal Society, the Stern Review, the 2000 IPCC scientists

and what do you get - the end of the world. Should we in Africa start digging our graves or

make reservations at the crematorium? Or should we challenge the doomsday scenarios?"

Alexander wrote in a May 1, 2007 report. "The claimed increases in surface air temperature

resulting from global warming are less than those between breakfast and morning tea on a

sunny day. In our part of the world they are also considerably less than those experienced

when moving in and out of the shade on a cloudless day," Alexander explained. "Acting

under political pressures of their own making, northern hemisphere scientists have allowed

themselves to be forced into a claustrophobic position from which there is no escape. They

are now desperately trying to convince the rest of the world of the catastrophic terrestrial

consequences of global warming. In the absence of believable evidence of the claimed

consequences, they are exercising dangerous practices of attempting to suppress all

research that questions human causality. The reprehensible edicts of the Royal Society, the

patently dishonest Stern Review and the pompous attempts to prevent the distribution of

the DVD on the climate change swindle are evidence of the desperate situation in which the

doomsday advocates find themselves," he added. Alexander also expressed concerns that

any so-called "solutions" to global warming will harm the poor. "The World Trade

Organization has failed in its attempts to lift trade restrictions imposed by affluent

countries. In a recent development, some UK organizations have reduced the importation

of perishable agricultural products from Africa using the excuse that this will reduce air

pollution. Now the developed countries have the audacity to expect African countries to

bow to their pressures based on corrupt science and broken promises of aid, in order to save

the world from their imaginary doomsday scenarios. We are not that stupid," he concluded.

(LINK) Alexander co-authored a June 2, 2007 paper entitled "Linkages between solar

activity, climate predictability and water resource development" with Solar system

researcher Frederick Bailey, Hydrogeologist Dr. David B Bredenkamp, Chemical

engineer Dr. Alwyn van der Merwe and engineer Nico Willemse. The paper read in

part: "The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between

these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms

observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years. It is also

shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the

statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and

deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no

247

evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities."

(LINK)

Geologist Dr. Cliff Ollier, a Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia,

has worked internationally as a geologist, geomorphologist, and soil scientist, and has

authored ten books and over 300 publications. Ollier dismissed fears of Greenland and

Antarctic ice melts in an October 21, 2007 report entitled "THE GREENLAND-

ANTARCTICA MELTING PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST." Ollier debunked fears of a

meltdown promoted by NASA's James Hansen. "Hansen is a modeller, and his scenario for

the collapse of the ice sheets is based on a false model," Ollier wrote. "Hansen has a model

of an ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane, lubricated by meltwater, which is itself

increasing because of global warming. The same model is adopted in many copy-cat

papers. Christoffersen and Hambrey (2006) and Bamber et al. (2007). A popular article

based on the same flawed model appeared in the June 2007 issue of National Geographic,

and the idea is present in textbooks such as The Great Ice Age (2000) by R.C.L. Wilson et

al.," Ollier explained. "Hansen's model, unfortunately, includes neither the main form of

the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, nor an understanding of how glaciers flow. The

predicted behaviour of the ice sheets is based on melting and accumulation rates at the

present day, and on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an inclined plane on a base

lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. The idea of

a glacier sliding downhill on a base lubricated by meltwater seemed a good idea when first

presented by de Saussure in 1779, but a lot has been learned since then," he added. "It is

not enough to think that present climate over a few decades can affect the flow of ice

sheets. Ice sheets do not simply grow and melt in response to average global temperature.

Anyone with this naïve view would have difficulty in explaining why glaciation has been

present in the southern hemisphere for about 30 million years, and in the northern

hemisphere for only 3 million years," Ollier continued. "Some of the present-day claims

that ice sheets ‗collapse' are based on false concepts. Ice sheets do not melt from the

surface down - only at the edges. Once the edges are lost, further loss depends on the rate

of flow of the ice. The rate of flow of an ice sheet does not depend on the present climate,

but on the amount of ice already accumulated, and that will keep it flowing for a very long

time. It is possible that any increase in temperature will cause increased snowfall thereby

nourishing the growth of the ice sheet, not diminishing it," he wrote. "The global warming

doomsday writers claim the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting

catastrophically, and will cause a sudden rise in sea level of 5 or more metres. This ignores

the mechanism of glacier flow which is by creep. Glaciers are not melting from the surface

down, nor are they sliding down an inclined plane lubricated by meltwater. The existence

of ice over 3 km thick preserving details of past snowfall and atmospheres, used to

decipher past temperature and CO2 levels, shows that the ice sheets have accumulated for

hundreds of thousands of years without melting. Variations in melting around the edges of

ice sheets are no indication that they are collapsing. Indeed ‗collapse' is impossible," he

concluded. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist William R. Kininmonth, who headed Australia's National

Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998 and coordinated the scientific and technical review

of the 1997-98 El Niño event for the World Meteorological Organization and its input

to the United Nations Task Force on El Niño, rejected man-made climate fears and

asserted warming is natural. "How often does it need to be said that CO2 is a colourless,

248

odourless gas whose only detrimental characteristic is to form a very weak acid (carbonic

acid) when dissolved in water. On the other hand, CO2 is an essential component of

photosynthesis: Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effective fertiliser of the biosphere

as shown by horticulturalists artificially increasing the CO2 content within glasshouses.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant," Kininmonth said in a May 30, 2007 article. "There is every

reason to believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have no significant impact on

the climate system. The greatest impact of atmospheric CO2 on the earth's radiation budget

was the first 20 ppmv. After this concentration the source of IR radiation to space from the

active CO2 radiation bands was in the stratosphere, where temperature does not change as

the emanation goes to higher and higher altitudes with increasing concentration,"

Kininmonth explained. "There is every reason to believe that earth is near an upper

temperature limit given its present distribution of land and ocean and the strength of solar

irradiance. The earth's surface is heated by way of solar radiation and back IR radiation

emanating from clouds, greenhouse gases and aerosols; it is cooled by conduction,

evaporation and IR emission. Solar radiation and conduction are essentially constant and

the earth's surface temperature will vary according to increasing back IR radiation

(radiation forcing from CO2 and water vapour) being offset by surface IR emission and

latent heat of evaporation," he added. "AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction

and a very dangerous fiction," he concluded. (LINK) On June 1, 2007, Kininmonth wrote,

"Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of

climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today's climate is getting worse than it has been in

the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were

during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the

London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late

December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the

seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and

exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear

and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could

scarcely breathe." (LINK)

Economist Des Moore, former deputy secretary of the federal Treasury in Australia

and current director of the Institute for Private Enterprise, debunked the UK Stern

Report's claims that it is cheaper to act now to confront global warming. "I take a position

similar to the Dual Critique of the Stern Review by 14 well-qualified scientists and

economists. Their conclusion was that the Review is "flawed to a degree that makes it

unsuitable ... for use in setting policy". I also agree with the not dissimilar conclusion on

the IPCC's February report by ten qualified economists and scientists, including Australian

meteorologist, William Kininmonth, in a February 2007 publication by Canada's Fraser

Institute," Moore wrote in a April 29, 2007 report entitled "How Big Can Global Carbon

Markets Get?" "Modelling of possible outcomes reflect assumptions that are not

necessarily correct about the weightings given to possible influences, or about the

simplifications of highly complex human relationships. My analyses of past scientific

predictions also suggest to me that, when looking to the future, science faces modelling

problems similar to economics and has made as many if not more erroneous predictions,"

Moore explained. "[The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers] concluded that it is 90 per

cent certain that most of the recent warming is due to increased human activity. However,

as two Australian economists have pointed out, 90 per cent certainty is the weakest

acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. Moreover, the Summary for

249

Policymakers published by the IPCC on 6 April claims only an 80 per cent chance that

warming has caused many of the perceived adverse environmental affects," Moore wrote.

"Although there has been an increase in average global temperatures of about 0.6 a degree

over the past 100 years, historical evidence suggests that temperature levels have been as

high if not higher in periods in the past and that this did not then have adverse effects on

societies. Indeed, rather to the contrary: significant economic and other advances seem to

have occurred in past warm periods," he concluded. (LINK)

Geologist Bob Foster, director of the Lavoisier Group in Australia denounced the UN

IPCC reports. "Belief in the mythical stability of past climate has, as its equally-

implausible corollary, belief that ‗doing the right thing' about greenhouse gas emissions can

ensure a stable future climate," Foster wrote in a May 22, 2005 article. "IPCC's hypothesis

of a people-driven climate is said to represent the consensus of 2,500 of the world's top

climate scientists; and it has been embraced unquestioningly by Australia's governments,

Federal and State. The Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been abolished;

and IPCC ostentatiously promotes the ‗Mann Hockeystick' - a thousand-year temperature

graph purporting to show a stable pre-industrial climate (handle), disturbed only now by

humans burning fossil fuels (blade)," Foster wrote. "The Kyoto Protocol is but King

Canute's first step toward impoverishing the world for no attainable purpose. But an

alternative hypothesis offers two natural drivers for our ever-changing climate. Both have

an underlying solar/planetary pace-maker, although via very different mechanisms.

Humans can't control the Sun and planets - or climate," he added. (LINK)

Global warming author and engineer Ray Evans, one of the founders of the

Australian Lavoisier Group, published "Nine Facts About Climate Change" in February

2007. "Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper

classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Evans writes in his

publication. "It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the

believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says. "The science from

the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly

recognised as irrelevant," Evans wrote. "CO2 only has a limited greenhouse effect in the

atmosphere," he argues. "A ‗saturation effect' makes the carbon dioxide reduction road to

salvation a ‗completely futile and irrational exercise in faith''' he says. (LINK) On March

26, 2007, Evan further explained his views. "What is of very great importance to us now is

to look for explanations as to why institutions such as the CSIRO so easily and carelessly

abandoned reason, and decided to go with the faith alone crowd,'' he said. "We have quite a

way to go before reason can overcome hysteria in this debate," he added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Rob Roseman of Colorado, who earned a Masters degree in

Meteorology, expressed man-made global warming skepticism in 2007. "I don't think

[global warming] is man-made. I could give you, and will give you, just a couple of

examples of -- by way of questions -- that will make people question why they think it's

man-made. For some reason we as humans have a tendency to want to believe things that

are popular in the media rather than just, say, listen to all of the scientists. Number one, it is

not settled science -- I will tell you that; absolutely not settled science," Roseman said on

April 23, 2007 on the Caplis & Silverman Show. "Colorado was covered by thousands of

feet of ice at some point. How did that melt unless there were some little guys driving

around in cars that we didn't know about?" Rosemand asked. "500 years ago, the Earth was

250

about 5 degrees warmer than it is now -- especially in North America and Northern Europe.

Guess what? Some of the best climate, the best crop-growing weather and everything else,

and the seas weren't 3 feet higher than they are today," he added.

Economist Dr. Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow for the Independent Institute and who

has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University, Stanford University, and a fellow for

the National Science Foundation, rejected the notion of a "consensus" on man-made

global warming and dismissed the UN IPCC's scientific credentials. "The United Nations

(and its committees and the bureaus it oversees) is no more a scientific organization than

the U.S. Congress (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees). When decisions and

pronouncements come forth from these political organizations, it makes sense to treat them

as essentially political in origin and purpose," Higgs wrote on May 7, 2007. "I have thirty-

nine years of professional experience -- twenty-six as a university professor, including

fifteen at a major research university, and then thirteen as a researcher, writer, and editor --

in close contact with scientists of various sorts, including some in the biological and

physical sciences and many in the social sciences and demography. I have served as a peer

reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals

for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health," Higgs wrote. He

then explained how the peer-review process has many flaws. "Personal vendettas,

ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-

promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to

the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no

event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.

The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another," Higgs wrote.

(LINK)

Physicist Wm. Robert Johnston, who co-wrote the scientific paper in 2007

"Observations of the Ionospheric Projection of the Plasmapause and Comparisons

with Relativistic Electron Measurements" which was submitted to the GRL, expressed

his skepticism about global warming in a December 29, 2005 report entitled "What If All

the Ice Melts? - Myths and Realities." "The suggestions that human activities will cause

significant changes in global temperature and sea level in the next century are flawed

predictions which haven't been confirmed by observations. The solutions to this apparently

non-existent problem proposed by environmentalists would not have a significant effect on

climate, but they would cause a significant amount of human suffering," Johnston wrote.

"Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The

remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer

weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under

any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts

for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years,

through wide ranges in global climate," Johnston explained. "It is sad that some youngsters

think that burning of hydrocarbons could cause the ice caps to melt and drown cities; it is

criminal when teachers don't correct this nonsense," he concluded. (LINK)

Space Physicist Dr. James Wanliss of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, who

received a prestigious award from National Science Foundation in 2004, rejects man-

made climate fears and teaches an honors course titled "The Politics and Science of Fear."

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the

251

nature of science in order to achieve political goals," Wanliss said according to a May 12,

2007 article in Florida's News Journal. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this

raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt

seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the

bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of

consensus science," Wanliss explained. "The atmosphere is incredibly complicated, and we

know very little about it. We are studying a system which is so big . . . we don't know what

all the variables are," he said. "You want certainty, but it's hard to get that," he said.

"Science isn't about certainty." Wanliss is heading a team of researchers who will use data

gathered from ground- and satellite-based instruments that measure fluctuations in the

Earth's magnetic field. (LINK)

Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor of Oregon State University's College of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, had his job title threatened by the state's Governor

over his skeptical stance on man-made warming fears. Excerpt from a February 8, 2007

article from KGW.com: "[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human

activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to

take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive

interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title

from Taylor." The article quoted Taylor as stating: "Most of the climate changes we have

seen up until now have been a result of natural variations."

Astronomer and Physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has conducted research on quasars

and galaxies, expressed global warming skepticism in a December 18, 2006 article entitled

"Global Warming -- How Concerned Do We Really Need to be?" "We tend to think Earth's

climate will always be optimal for human civilization if we just take better care of it. But

nothing could be further from the truth," Ross wrote. "When we put emotion and politics

aside and take a rational look at our planet's history, we actually see something quite

different. Ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global

climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth's orbit.

Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those

years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years," Ross explained. "Contrary to

the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our

human activities in fact create a cooling effect," Ross wrote. "The release of aerosols and

particulates actually blocks out sunlight and generates light-reflecting cloud layers,

especially over densely populated and highly industrialized regions where pollution is

loosely, if at all regulated. The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical,

chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet.

When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing

its optimal climate for human civilization," Ross added. "This delicate balancing act of

multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious.

But to suggest that we can stop global warming by simply cutting back on fossil fuel

combustion and altering our industrial processes is naïve at best. If we ignore one or more

of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted

solutions could actually make matters worse," he concluded. (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Fred Michel, Director of the Institute of Environmental

Science and Associate Professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton

252

University in Canada, rejected global warming fears. "Climate hysteria has been known to

be a sham all along," Michel told EPW on May 16, 2007. "As someone who has worked in

the arctic on topics such as permafrost, groundwater, and Quaternary glacial history, it has

always been quite clear that the climate is constantly changing and that natural processes

are able to produce very large changes over very short time periods," wrote Michel, who

has worked with the International Energy Agency. We need "to return our focus to the

important issues that need to be addressed, which includes being aware of the effects of a

changing climate whether it be warmer or colder," he added. (LINK)

State Climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of Mississippi State University and past

president of the American Association of State Climatologists, declared his skepticism

on warming in 2007. "First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody

tell you there is," Wax said, according to a May 16, 2007 article. "I don't know if it's going

to rain Thursday or not. Certainly I don't know what the temperature is going to be in

2050," Wax explained. "In 1957, all the thermometers (the government uses to track

temperatures) were moved from fields onto airports. It went from the Weather Bureau,

which supported agriculture, to the Department of Commerce. Cities are hotter. (If you

look at the numbers) you'll see a major climate change in 1957 alone," he said. Wax, who

chaired the U.S.D.A.'s Southern Region Research Committee for Climatology in

Agricultural Production, also explained the geologic history of the Earth. "There was a

little ice age from 1400 to 1800. We're warming back up, but it's not nearly as warm as it

was 2,000 or 7,000 years ago," he explained. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chemical Engineer Dr. Tony Burns of the University of New South Wales in Sydney,

Australia expressed skepticism of man-made global warming. "The common viewpoint is

that man-made carbon dioxide is to blame, but the Earth has been through ice ages and

periods of global warming for millions of years," Burns wrote in an April 2006 essay. "As

recently as 1,000 years ago, the Earth was a degree warmer in the ‗Medieval Warm Period'

and the Vikings could grow crops in Greenland," Burns explained. "No one questions how

this could happen so many years before our recent fuel consumption excesses. No one

questions why man-made carbon dioxide would have any effect on global warming when it

constitutes less than 1 percent of greenhouse gases (the major greenhouse gas is water

vapor). No one questions the recent Antarctic ice cores from Dome Concordia, with ice up

to 700,000 years old, which show increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

occurring about 1,000 years after global temperature rises, thus suggesting that high carbon

dioxide levels are a result of global warming, not a cause," he added. Burns decried the

demonization of climate skeptics. "In 1633, opposition to the common viewpoint could

mean death. This was the case with Galileo when he proposed that the Earth revolved

around the sun. He was tried for heresy. Of course things are different today. People who

question dogma are no longer burnt at the stake. Instead, they're branded as having suspect

motives, as reactionaries or simply as nutcases," he concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at

Cullen College of Engineering at University of Houston and the author of numerous

books and over 50 scientific studies, rejected climate fears. "After a desperate literature

search over four years, involving as many as 30 engineering and science graduate students,

we have yet to come up with one professional paper that shows a quantitative causality

between increased carbon dioxide and enhanced global temperature," Economides, who is

253

a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, wrote in a April 9, 2007 article in

Energy Tribune. "This means there is not one paper in the literature of heat transfer or

thermodynamics that shows the physics of global warming in a quantified way, using well-

known laws or principles. There are, however, many arm-waving and postulating writings,

often in the popular press, all referencing the other ‗hundreds of papers,'" Economides

explained. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and

professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and

modeling of complex systems and expressed global warming skepticism. "Human

development, associated with the continual advance of Civilization on the Earth, has

always influenced the local weather; and the degree of influence on local weather is

probably proportional to the magnitude of the changes in the Earth's topography that have

resulted from continual human advances," Valentine wrote to EPW on May 17, 2007.

"There is no evidence that any of these changes in local weather have ever resulted in a

change to the global climate. My own research has convinced me that excepting for one

situation, there have NEVER been ANY influences that have changed the global climate -

not solar, not stellar, not variations in Earth's spin on its axis - nothing - that can be

demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, for which equally valid evidence is available that

contradicts the assumption of global climate change," Valentine explained. "This single

exception is the known variation of eccentricity of the Earth's orbit about the Sun. This is

the periodic variation of distance from Earth to the Sun that changes the distance from the

Earth to the Sun within Earth's seasons, and occurs within tens of thousands of year

epochs," he concluded. (Note: Valentine is expressing his personal views.)

Microbiologist Gary Novak publishes a website detailing his skepticism of man-made

global warming. "Arctic ice is melting faster than expected, because oceans are heating

more than the atmosphere. No atmospheric temperature increase has been found in eight

years. Alarmists are not promoting science; they are promoting propaganda justified

through a black-box analysis which generates contrived numbers. Science requires

evidence and logic," Novak, who holds a masters degree in microbiology, wrote on his

website in 2007. "There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming.

‗Greenhouse gases' absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters. More of the gas

cannot absorb more radiation. A thick sheet of plastic does nothing more than a thin sheet.

Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10

meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature," Novak explained. "The real

cause of global warming could be an increase in solar energy, as critics generally claim; but

there is evidence that it is due to variations in heat from the earth's core. Ice ages are caused

by oceans heating, which appears to result from increased heat from inside the earth. The

primary evidence is the exact cycling of ice ages. Environmental factors would not be so

precise. Also, the oceans heating more than the atmosphere points to the heat coming from

inside the earth. Atmospheric changes can result from variations in solar activity, but they

are superficial compared to heat from the earth's core which drives ice age cycles," he

concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Biologist and Biophysicist Dr. Paulo N. Correa, who has published extensively in

scientific journals, co-authored a recent paper entitled "Global Warming: An Official

Pseudoscience." Correa wrote about "mass-hysterias as the pseudoscientific fad of 'global

254

warming.'" "In the 70s, in the wake of the atmospheric cooling experienced between 1945-

1947 and 1972, there was a passing fad of 'global' cooling, supposedly buttressed by study

of the fossil record and ice samples, which had 'established' the existence of cycles of

minor ice-ages (see reference to the Milankovitch model below). At that time, the fear was

that the earth was just turning the corner into a new ice-age," Correa wrote. "Just like

seawater shows oscillations in temperature or content of sensible heat, the atmosphere, too,

is subject to long-term oscillations in energy content, including sensible heat and its

measure by temperature. In fact, the evidence indicates that the atmosphere undergoes

regular periods of cooling and heating, both near the ground and all the way up, through the

troposphere, to the tropopause and the stratosphere. The scientific evidence collected over

the past 50 years suggests that there are periods of cooling and warming superimposed on

cycles of various scales, and that these variations are connected, in ways not yet

understood, to solar periodicities, geothermal energy, varying atmospheric electricity and

latent heat, and varying cloud cover and cloud composition," he added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the "majority of TV meteorologists" are

skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in a March 30, 2007

article in The Jewish Times, "I truly believe that global warming is more political than

anything else. It's a hot topic. It grabs people's interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied

this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard

time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on

and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire

puzzle." Berk continued: "There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from

the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane

activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now

it's happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it's been distorted and

exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree

with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty

years later, they're saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we've had

warming and cooling throughout history. It's a natural cycle. We haven't created it and it's

not something we can stop." (LINK)

Physicist George E. Smith, a former physics lecturer at University of Auckland, is a

member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the

American Institute of Physics. Smith expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is

enough doubt to scuttle any idea that man is causing [global warming]," Smith wrote to

EPW on May 27, 2007. "The earth is a giant swamp cooler, with increased warming

(mostly in the oceans) leading to increased evaporation, which ultimately leads to more

clouds forming somewhere, and hence less solar radiation reaching the ground so it cools

down again. So long as we have oceans, we can't change the temperature of the earth, either

up or down, even if we wanted to," Smith, who received the Distinguished Alumni Award

from the University of Auckland, explained. "The so-called global mean temperature is

reputed to be 58F versus about 57 F a century ago. So what value would you like it to be

and why?" Smith added. In 2005, Smith also detailed his skepticism in a January 2005

Physics Today article. "The largest single repository of CO2 on Earth is the oceans, and

that the solubility of CO2 in water drops as the water temperature increases. So clearly a

mechanism exists whereby increasing ocean water temperatures (which is where most of

the solar energy goes) causes increased out-gassing of CO2 into the atmosphere.

255

Furthermore, Arctic permafrost zones revert to marshy peat bogs when the Arctic warms,

and then bacterial activity takes hold and converts decaying ancient vegetation into

atmospheric CO2. Both of those processes are happening right now," Smith wrote. "The

Russian Vostok ice cores going back 420 000 years and the Dome-C ice cores going back

730 000 years show that the Antarctic ice sheet has not melted during that time frame, even

in the warmest interglacial periods. The ice cores also show periods of rapid global

warming followed by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2," he added. (LINK)

Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist Dr. Susan Crockford of University of

Victoria in Canada has published papers in peer-reviewed academic journals and

rejected fears that man-made global warming could devastate animal life on Earth. "It is

apparent to me that animal species are much more flexible over the long term (centuries

and millennia) than we assume based on short-term studies of local populations: most

species have the capacity to adjust to abrupt climate or habitat change," Crockford told

EPW on December 1, 2007. "While many individuals, or even entire local populations,

may perish in the face of change, others do just fine (this variation in ‗survivability' among

individuals within a population is characteristic of all species). The individuals who survive

rebuild the population and the species perpetuates," Crockford added. "Contrary to popular

belief, populations can rebound from quite low levels, as demonstrated by the fact that

many population expansions (and introductions by humans) derive from a handful of

individuals at best and often, a single pregnant female. Polar bears, for example, survived

several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today and if

global numbers of bears dropped during these times, they must have rebounded nicely or

there would not be so many bears today. Ringed seals, the primary prey of polar bears (and

similarly dependant on sea ice), also survived these warm periods and are now very

abundant," she added. "In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or

its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming,

regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models: evidence from the

past is a kind of ‗ground truth' we can trust and it tells us that sufficient sea ice will persist,

even with significant increases in temperature, to ensure the survival of both polar bears

and ringed seals," she concluded. (LINK)

Meteorologist Herb Stevens, one of the original meteorologists at The Weather

Channel and founder of Grass Roots Weather, expressed climate skepticism in 2007.

"Based on my background as a scientist, you should also know that I am a firm believer

that warming of out atmosphere is not caused by man. Quite simply, the evidence does not

exist to prove a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and rising atmospheric

temperatures...the correlation does not pass muster with the scientific method, and until it

does, thousands of other scientists and I continue to look elsewhere for the answers to

questions of short and long term climate change," Stevens wrote on May 17, 2007. "The

vast majority of the coverage of global warming suggests catastrophic consequences await

in the not too distant future...mind you, all of those predictions for 25, 50, or even 100

years in the future come from computer models, the same technology that quite often can't

get tomorrow's weather right," Stevens explained. "It is especially troubling to scientists

that the vast majority of spokespersons for global warming have little if any scientific

background...politicians, actors, radio and television hosts, and other members of the

media, most of whom have journalism backgrounds," Stevens added. "Unfortunately, due

to the one-sidedness of the information barrage, much of our society has bought in to the

256

notion that we are on the road to ruin. Several entities within the winter sports industry

have become vocal supporters of the notion of human-induced global warming, and they

have scared the heck out of a lot of people in the process," he concluded.

Meteorologist Arthur T. "Terry" Safford III, a retired Lt Col. of the U.S. Air Force

has declared himself a skeptic. "My principal interest in this subject is not so much how

climate change affects public policy, but more the scientific aspects. That does bother me

greatly. I was always taught that as a pure scientist, you gather the facts, develop some

possible explanation, and select the best-tested solution. That is clearly not the norm with

(internationally) government-granted scientists or grants from agenda groups. They tend to

start with the conclusion and work backwards to the facts. If the facts aren't convenient,

they are adjusted, the sample size reduced, or simply ignored," Safford wrote to EPW on

May 21, 2007. "This is ‗junk' science, at its worst and needs to uncovered and exposed. It's

OK, under the First Amendment, if Hollywood advocates junk science, but it is not OK for

the meteorological/climatological community. The science of meteorology has enough

trouble with its ‗public image' without destroying its credibility altogether," Safford

explained. "I am a retired synoptic meteorologist from the Air Force for 29 years. I spent

the vast majority of that time directly supporting military operations at a number of

locations and differing commands in both the Air Force and Army," he concluded.

The UK-based Scientific Alliance, which bills itself as a "evidence-based approach" to

environmental issues and has numerous scientists as members, rejected climate alarm

in 2007. "The Scientific Alliance points out that these (the UN IPCC) conclusions are

derived from the output of computer models based on an imperfect understanding of the

non-linear, chaotic system which is our climate," stated a May 3, 2007 press release from

the group. Chemist Martin Livermore, director of the Scientific Alliance, stated in the

release, "Politicians and many in the scientific community are putting their faith in the

unproven hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change. They ignore

the fact that the formation of clouds - known to have a major influence on climate - is

poorly understood. They ignore the major influence of El Niño events, responsible for the

record average temperatures in 1998 but the mechanism of which we do not understand.

And they ignore the lack of agreement between model predictions and observation in the

upper atmosphere and much of the southern hemisphere. This is not a sound basis for the

most radical global policy proposals ever seen." The release continued, "It is clear that

there has been a significant warming trend in parts of the world in the last 30 years,

particularly in the northern hemisphere. But what has caused these changes, and what will

happen over the next 30 years, is not well understood. To believe that we can control

climate with our current level of knowledge is misguided. In the circumstances, the global

community should focus its efforts on protecting vulnerable areas while helping to lift

people out of the poverty which increases their vulnerability. Putting reduction of carbon

dioxide emissions as top priority will do nothing for the world's poorest countries."

Scientists who are members of the Scientific Alliance include: Professor Tom

Addiscott of the University of East London, who was awarded the Royal Agricultural

Society of England Research Medal, specializes in research about modelling the processes

which determine losses of nitrate from the soil; Chemist Dr Jack Barrett of Imperial

College has conducted research into spectroscopy and photochemical kinetics and authored

several textbooks about Inorganic Chemistry and the Bacterial Oxidation of Minerals; Dr

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has worked with emission modelers; Biochemist and

257

microbiologist Professor Vivian Moses of King's College and University College in

London; Professor Anthony Trewavas of the Institute of Molecular Plant Sciences at the

University of Edinburgh who has authored over 220 papers and two books;

Mathematician Mark Cantley a former adviser in the Directorate for Biotechnology,

Agriculture and Food, of the Directorate-General for Research, of the European

Commission; Professor Mick Fuller PhD is Professor of Plant Physiology at the

University of Plymouth and Head of Graduate School and former Head of the Department

of Agriculture and Food Studies at Plymouth; Professor Michael Laughton, DSc(Eng),

FREng. Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London and

currently Visiting Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Technology

at Imperial College; and Chemical Engineer Professor William Wilkinson, who was the

former deputy chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels and served on the UK Advisory

Committee on Research and Development and the Science Research Council.

http://scientific-alliance.org/

Climatologist Dr. David R. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist and the

Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or

coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Legates also expressed climate

skepticism in 2007. "Scientific debate continues regarding the extent to which human

activities contribute to global warming and what the potential impact on the environment

might be. Importantly, much of the scientific evidence contradicts assertions that

substantial global warming is likely to occur soon and that the predicted warming will harm

the Earth's biosphere," Legates wrote in a May 15, 2007 study entitled "Climate Science:

Climate Change and Its Impacts." "Sea levels have been rising - in fact, they have been

rising since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago - but there is no evidence of an

accelerating trend. The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer

models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best. In sum, the science

does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century,

nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary

effects of climate change," Legates concluded. Legates has also served as Coordinator of

the National Geographic sponsored Delaware Geographic Alliance and served as the

Associate Director for the NASA sponsored Delaware Space Grant Consortium. (LINK)

Legates has also clashed with the Governor of Delaware in 2007 because of the Governor

disagreed with his skeptical views on global warming. (LINK)

Meteorologists Andre and Sally Bernier of WJW-TV, in Cleveland, Ohio, both reject

climate fears. "As two degreed and seasoned meteorologists, we will not be selling our

snowblower anytime soon or tempted to try planting a palm tree in our front lawn," the

Berniers, who were formerly of The Weather Channel, wrote to EPW on May 21, 2007.

"There is simply far too little evidence to support entertaining the notion of anthropogenic

causes for any climate shift. The focus has been to unearth as much evidence as possible

all the while ignoring any evidence that is contrary to the theory the likes of which is far

too significant to cast off," the Berniers explained. "Additionally, to rely and act on

computer models which do not even come close to accurately capture the infinitely

complex climate system of Earth is nothing short of reckless and irresponsible," they

explained. "Thirty years ago headlines frightened everyone with an in imminent ice age.

We suspect that fifty years from now, real science will have cast off and forgotten these

claims similar to the realization that Galileo was right after all," the Berniers concluded.

258

Yury Izrael, the director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, a member of the

Russian Academy of Sciences and UN IPCC Vice President, rejected man-made global

warming fears. "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming,"

Izrael, who also served as former first vice-president of the World Meteorological

Organization, wrote on June 23, 2005 in RIA Novosti. "Global temperatures increased

throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s and subsequently began to rise again. Present-

day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic

passages. However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that

recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to

decrease. These sensational findings are one of Mother Nature's surprises," Izrael wrote.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 PPM (parts per million air molecules) in 1880, and

now stands at 378 PPM. It has increased by 31% since the pre-industrial era. This is quite a

lot, but temperatures have increased by only 0.6 degrees. Paradoxically, temperatures

tended to rise by one to 12 degrees at peak intervals, with carbon-dioxide fluctuations

totaling not more than 300 PPM. This contradiction is rather baffling. Therefore I believe

that the link between man's activities and rising temperatures has not been proved

completely. Natural factors and the impact of man seem to be interlinked," he added. "The

European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would

be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound. In ancient times the

Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (in Carboniferous

period). But life still goes on," he concluded. (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of

the Sciences in Philadelphia, rejected the notion that "the vast majority" of scientists

believe in man-made global warming. "The truth about this is the opposite; most scientists

do not," Kauffman wrote on September 7, 2007. "CO2 can hardly have been the cause of

warming because its level in air has been higher than it is now at least 3 times between

1812 and 1962 as shown by 90,000 direct chemical measurements (Beck, E.-G., 180 Years

of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment, 2007,

18(2), 259-282). Further, there is no recent correlation between CO2 levels and

atmospheric temps as you may see easily from a NOAA graph," he wrote. "With an

allowance for such urban heat island effects, the global temperature rise from 1905-1940

was similar to the one from 1970-2003 (www.giss.nasa.gov). Dr. Hansen's flawed USA

ground station temps from 2000-2006 needed a Y2K correction provided by the Canadian

Steve McIntyre showing that 1934 was the warmest year of the last 100, not 1998 or 2006,"

he concluded. (LINK)

Meteorologist Jim Ott, formerly of WTMJ-TV in Wisconsin, a member of the

American Meteorological Society and a former lecturer at University of Wisconsin,

expressed climate skepticism in 2007 of climate fears. "There is no question that the past

25 years have been warmer than average. There is also no question that background levels

of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere have shown a slow but steady increase since

the late 1950s, when measurements were begun in a remote spot in the Hawaiian Islands.

That is where the certainty ends and the questions really begin," Ott, who hold a masters of

science, wrote on February 10, 2007. "Evidence buried deeper in the Earth suggests that

there may have been four major glaciations in North America, with each period of cooling

followed by warming. Theories abound about why the climate changed enough to form the

glaciers and then to melt them, but the fact is no one knows for sure what caused those

259

climate changes. One thing we do know: It wasn't anything that humans did. And if we

really don't know the answers, isn't it possible that the same factors that caused those

climate changes could become active again?" he wrote. "More questions: If CO2 levels

have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, as many scientists

surmise, why have we seen some major changes in weather patterns over that time period

that don't fit the global warming theory? For example, why were the 1930s much warmer

than the 1960s? And why were some of our most severe winters in the late 1970s and early

1980s? Weren't CO2 levels rising during those times? Obviously, other factors besides man

have an impact on climate," he added. "If we conclude that from now on only human

activity can affect climate change, we are ignoring factors that we don't understand. Could

we be in for some unexpected surprises if we assume that the Earth's climate will only get

warmer in the coming decades?" he wrote. "Assuming that 25 years of warmer-than-

average weather constitutes a long-term, irreversible climate change ignores other periods

of anomalous weather that were only temporary. Assuming that human activity is the only

factor that will affect the Earth's climate, and that what is happening now will continue in

the future, leaves some big questions unanswered," he concluded. (LINK)

Legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil, described as "an inventor whose work in artificial

intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades" according to May

2, 2007 CNN article, dismissed former Vice President Al Gore's climate views. "These

slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don't account for anything like the technological

progress we're going to experience," Kurzweil said, according to the CNN article. The

article also noted Kurzweil "invented the flatbed scanner, the first true electric piano, and

large-vocabulary speech-recognition software; he's launched ten companies and sold five,

and has written five books; he has a BS in computer science from MIT and 13 honorary

doctorates." (LINK) In a June 19, 2006 interview with the Washington Post, Kurzweil

elaborated more on technology. "None of the global warming discussions mention the word

‗nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20

years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of

our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels

are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that

are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant

contribution," he said. "I don't see any disasters occurring in the next 10 years from this.

However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want

to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and

the geopolitical instability it causes," he concluded. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Augie Auer of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,

former professor at the University of Wyoming and former MetService chief

meteorologist, dismissed climate fears: "People should not allow themselves to be

deluded by the computer-modeled speculation with which they are bombarded in the news

media these days. Measurements show mankind's contribution to the greenhouse effect

through carbon dioxide emissions has been somewhere between miniscule to

indiscernible," said Professor Auer in a April 5, 2007 article. "In any case, records tell us

that increases in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have followed, not led,

natural cyclical increases in Earth's temperature," Prof. Auer added. (LINK) Auer took to

task doomsday computer predictions. "Most of these climate predictions or models, they

are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3 (video game). They're really not justified in

260

what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not

right," Auer said in May 2007 in a New Zealand radio interview shortly before his death in

June 10, 2007. (LINK) Auer also declared man-made climate fears unfounded. "We're all

going to survive this," Auer said in a May 19, 2007 article in the Timaru Herald. "If we

didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do

have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time," he explained. "We couldn't do

it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates," he

concluded. (LINK) [In Memoriam: Auer died on June 10, 2007]

Geologist Dr. Norman J. Page a retired independent geological consultant, rejected

climate fears. "It is clear that periodic changes in the suns activity, its size, irradiance and

magnetism strongly affect climate and are likely the main driver of climate change," Page

explained in to EPW on May 25, 2007. "The words ‗United States' are almost invariably

followed by ‗the world's biggest polluter.' This is not so. The U.S. emits a large amount of

CO2 but land use patterns in the United States also absorb large amounts of CO2. The

important figure for any country or region is not the total emitted but the net amount after

absorption is subtracted from emissions. The data are not robust, but a paper published in

Science magazine in 1998 concludes that on balance North America takes up more CO2

than it emits to the tune of about 100 million tons per year while Eurasia actually puts into

the atmosphere on balance about 3.5 billion tons CO2. The United States cleans up its own

mess while Europe is a massive net polluter," Page wrote. "Compared to most of earth's

history the earth is now impoverished in CO2. At various times in the last 550 million years

CO2 levels have often been four or five times current levels and for some eras 10 to 15

times greater than today. Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas while

CO2 comprises less than 3% of earth's greenhouse gases," Page explained.

Fifteen scientists in the Netherlands signed an open letter declaring "Man is not

responsible for global warming" in 2007. "The warming is mainly natural causes," read

the January 11, 2007 open letter signed by the 15 scientists in De Volkskrant, Holland.

"Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and that the level of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. True - but correlation is never proof of causation.

Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century, from 1940 to 1975 -- even while

CO2 was increasing rapidly," the 15 scientists explained. "There are nearly two dozen large

models -- each giving a different result, depending on the assumptions fed into the

computer," the letter continued. "In any case, model results are never evidence; only actual

observations and data count," they added. "The current warming may well be part of

the natural 1500-year cycle that has been measured in ice cores, ocean sediments,

stalagmites, etc., going back nearly a million years," the scientists concluded. The scientists

who signed the open letter included: Peter Bloemers, professor of biochemistry,

University of Nijmegen: Adriaan Broere, an engineer and geophysicist, worked in satellite

technology; Bas van Geel, paleo-ecology professor, University of Amsterdam; Hub

Jongen, electrical engineer; Rob Kouffeld, professor of energy, TU Delft; Rob Meleon,

professor of molecular recognition, Utrecht University; Jan Mulderink, a chemical

engineer, former research director AKZO Arnhem, former chairman for the Foundation of

Sustainable Chemical Technology in Wageningen; Harry Priem, . professor of planetary

and isotope geology, former director ZWO / NWO Institute for Isotope - Geophysical

Research, a former chairman Royal Dutch Geological organization; Henk Schalke, former

chairman of the management team IUGS-UNESCO; Olaf Schuiling, Geochemistry

261

professor, University of Utrecht; Dick Thoenes, em. professor chemical process

engineering TU Eindhoven, a former chairman Royal Dutch Chemical Society; and Jan

Pieter van Wolfswinkel, a retired mechanical engineering professor, TU Delft. (LINK)

Australian marine scientist Dr. Walter Starck rallied around NASA's top

administrator Michael Griffin's skeptical climate comments. "Griffin makes an important

distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of

catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated

by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority," Starck said

in a June 1, 2007 press release. "Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes

have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one

chooses to define the Little Ice Age as ‗normal' and ‗optimal' the net effect of any warming

has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic

predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin's note of

caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration," he

added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Paul G. Becker, a former chief meteorologist with the Air Force and

former Colorado Springs chapter president of the American Meteorological Society,

called Gore's view of climate change the "biggest myth of the century." "The most plentiful

is water vapor making up 35 to 70 percent of all greenhouse gases. Mankind's total

contribution to all greenhouse gases - this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants,

boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name - the total is less than 1 percent.

Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent," Becker wrote in a June 3, 2007 article.

"Remember that most of the natural wonders of the world were caused by various ice ages

and periods of global warming. We've warmed one-half of a degree in the last century, but

Gore has Florida under water in a decade or so when the ice cap melts," he added. (LINK)

Climatologist Dr. Robert E. Davis, a Professor at University of Virginia, a former UN

IPCC contributor and past president of the Association of American Geographers,

and past-chair of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on

Biometeorology and Aerobiology, dismissed what he termed "hysteria over global

warming." "We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm

centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc. for which mankind's striving for

a high quality of life is to blame, via the internal combustion engine and its by-product,

carbon dioxide. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good

observations to really determine how much of a record we're even close to setting," Davis

wrote on May 12, 2005. "Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of

unprecedented climate shifts -- in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the

short life span of most scientists. Remember one of the absolutely fundamental and too-

often unstated tenets of science -- there's little point in studying anything that doesn't vary

during a scientist's lifetime," he added. Davis has written numerous papers on such topics

as atmospheric circulation change." (LINK)

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, a Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the department

of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio State University, who has published over 45 peer-

reviewed studies, dismissed climate fears. "Man's addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in

the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant," Essenhigh wrote on

262

June 13, 2005. "Of the two main reasons, the first is that nature does a far bigger job in the

carbon-dioxide supply rate, and the second is that carbon dioxide is secondary to water as a

so-called greenhouse gas. So shouldn't we first try to control water? And behind that again

is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model,

which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has

been for the last million years or so. So, is the carbon dioxide driving the temperature, as so

many people seem to believe? Or, is the temperature driving the carbon dioxide? If it's the

latter, then what's the problem with carbon dioxide emissions?" Essenhigh wrote.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - and can it be wrong? -

nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out

again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to

vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea. And from man? That's about 5

or 6 or possibly 7 gigatons per year, which is about the size of the noise in the nature data

and is essentially trivial by comparison," he added. "And, of the two gases in the

atmosphere that do most of the warming, carbon dioxide, as noted, is secondary. Water is

responsible for roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the absorption and re-radiation, and

carbon dioxide is responsible for (most of) the balance of 15 percent to 20 percent," he

added. (LINK)

Applied Physicist and Engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman wrote an October 24, 2006

paper entitled "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide." In the abstract of the paper

appearing in Rocket Scientist's Journal, Glassman wrote, "Carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well?known but

under?appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it

is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and

circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters." Glassman further

explained, "Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2?rich sea water deep into the

ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower

pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere."

"Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has

neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has

been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging

proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean

temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases

in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global

temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for

such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway

event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere," he wrote.

(LINK)

Dr. A.T.J. de Laat, who specialized in atmospheric composition and climate research

at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, commented in the February 2007

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. "The line of reasoning here is that natural

factors alone cannot explain the observed twentieth-century temperature variations, while

including greenhouse gases does. The logical fallacy is the ‗fallacy of false dilemma/either-

or fallacy,' that is, the number of alternatives are (un)intentionally restricted, thereby

omitting relevant alternatives from consideration (Haskins 2006)," de Laat wrote. "That

global twentieth-century temperature variations can be explained by using a simple model

263

merely points to a certain consistency between this model or climate model simulations and

observations. Furthermore, the fact that the late-twentieth-century warming is unexplained

by two factors (solar variations and aerosols) and can be explained by including a third

factor (greenhouse gases) does not prove that greenhouse gases are the cause; it just points

to a missing process in this model," he explained. "In fact, this whole line of reasoning

does not prove the existence of global warming; it is merely consistent with it. As an

example, it is still debated whether or not land surface temperature changes during the

twentieth century are affected by anthropogenic non-greenhouse gas processes and whether

or not these processes affect surface temperatures on a global scale (Christy et al. 2006;

Kalnay et al. 2006; de Laat and Maurellis 2006). There is a risk associated with this line of

reasoning in that it suggests that understanding temperature variations of the climate

system as a whole is very simple and completely understood, all one has to consider is the

amount of incoming and outgoing radiation by changes in atmospheric absorbers and

reflectors," he added. "Notwithstanding the fact that temperature is not a conserved

quantity in any physical system, and thus is not the best metric to study energy within the

climate system, it also suggests that other processes and nonlinear behavior of the climate

system are either nonexistent or do not affect (decadal and global) temperature variations.

Presenting climate science this way oversimplifies the complexity of the climate system

and possibly overstates our current understanding," he concluded. (LINK)

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer,

and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences, called Gore's film

"science fiction" in a February 23, 2007 article. "The main point of [Gore's] movie is that,

unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of

Greenland's 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels

over twenty feet by the year 2100," Michaels wrote. Michaels is a senior fellow in

environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of "Meltdown: The Predictable

Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." Michaels

continued, "Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any

support for Gore's hypothesis. Instead, there's an un-refereed editorial by NASA climate

firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change - edited by Steven Schneider, of

Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose ‗the right balance

between being effective and honest' about global warming - and a paper in the Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the

author, again Dr. Hansen. These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years

to ‗do' something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore

only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight

years! It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various

‗solutions' for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would

reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century." (LINK) Michaels lost his

position as the VA State Climatologist after a clash with the state's Governor: "I was told

that I could not speak in public," Michaels said in a September 29, 2007 Washington Post

interview. Excerpt from article: "Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer

but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had

warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. 'I resigned as Virginia

state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of

expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,' Michaels said in a statement this week

264

provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. 'It was

impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.' (LINK)

Australian Scientist Jonathan Lowe, who specializes in statistical analysis of climate

change and holds masters in science, is currently working on his PhD, expressed

climate skepticism. "If CO2 emissions were the major cause of global warming then we

would see constant increases in temperature across the day and night as the CO2 blanket

keeps the heat inside our atmosphere. Scientific research has shown that this has occurred

with both minimum and maximum temperature increasing. We have pointed out time and

time again how minimum temperatures are not a good indication of night time warming,

especially when it rarely occurs at night," Lowe wrote of Australian temperatures on his

Gust of Hot Air blog on November 7, 2007. "If CO2 was the major cause of global

warming then we would see no significant difference in rate of change of temperature

anomalies, in other words, all temperatures should increase equally. If the sun was a major

cause of global warming then we would see no or limited changes at night, an increase in

the rate of change approaching the middle of the day, and then a decreasing rate of change

of temperature anomalies when the sun starts to lose its daytime strength," he explained.

"So what do we find when looking at the data?" he asked. "The data points heavily towards

sun induced global warming," he concluded. (LINK)

Tim Thornton, who holds degrees in Meteorology and Computer Science, publishes

the website "The Global Warming Heretic." "If warming is in fact occurring, is it

human-induced (i.e. anthropogenic)? There is no -- zero, zilch, nada -- conclusive evidence

to this effect, despite what you hear daily from pundits and politicians. It is often asserted,

often assumed, but to my knowledge never demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt or on a

preponderance of the evidence," Thornton wrote on May 21, 2007. "It has seemed so clear

to me that the global warming (or climate change, or whatever they're calling it this week)

juggernaut has been only 10 percent science mixed with 90 percent politics. If this was a

purely scientific issue, why would we see it -- alone of all scientific pursuits -- declared to

be ‗settled' and closed to further inquiry? Why else would the media be giving the time of

day to people who say that those who challenge the orthodoxy are the moral equivalent of

Holocaust deniers? When some Hollywood climate expert like Leonardo DiCaprio

proclaims that humanity possibly faces extinction because of global warming, why doesn't

someone on the pro-AGW side ask him to stop making their cause look bad?" Thornton

wrote. (LINK)

60 Prominent Scientists came forward in 2006 to question the so-called "consensus"

that the Earth faces a "climate emergency." The 60 scientists wrote an open letter in

2006 to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from

underneath global warming alarmists. "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know

today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have

concluded it was not necessary," the 60 scientists wrote on April 6, 2006. "Observational

evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust

model predictions of the future...Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the

[Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about

increasing greenhouse gases," the 60 scientists wrote. "‗Climate change is real' is a

meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate

catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global

265

climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains

impossible to distinguish from this natural ‗noise,'" they added. "It was only 30 years ago

that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the

midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does,

even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political

agendas," the 60 scientists concluded. Scientists signing the letter included: Dr. Paul

Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University,

Sudbury, Ont.; Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of

Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology; Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology),

fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the

NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa; Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept.

of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.; Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten,

professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept.

of Economics, University of Victoria; Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant,

former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research

scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.; Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate

consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta; Rob Scagel,

M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,

Surrey, B.C.; Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary; Dr.

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant,

Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand; Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of

the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway; Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and

spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.; Dr. Harry N.A. Priem,

emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former

director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal

Netherlands Geological & Mining Society; Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy

advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria,

Germany; Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant; Dr. Arthur Rorsch,

emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board

member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and

public health; and Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.;

international economist. (LINK) (See attachment two for full letter and complete list of

signatories at end of "Consensus Busters" report)

Physicist and Mathematician Dr. Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of

Sciences, who has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals, presented

his views on climate change in 2006. According to a March 13, 2006 press release from the

University of Leicester in the UK, "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed

at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in

the journal Science First Hand. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning

fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the

Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by

scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not

connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil.

Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could

damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the

amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." The release continued,

266

"The most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov, and it is this compound on

which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric

levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes

to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide

and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise

the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius." The release

concluded, "Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as

an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels,

destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the

high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km)." (LINK)

Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Professor of Environmental Economics at the

University of Guelph, is author or coauthor of dozens of peer-reviewed papers in both

economics and climate science journals. McKitrick, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, and

one of the de-bunkers of the IPCC “hockey stick” graph, is coauthor of the prize-

winning best-seller Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of

Global Warming. In an essay published on December 5, 2007 in the National Post, he

describes new research that shows the IPCC surface temperature record is exaggerated.

"The data come from thermometers around the world, but between the thermometer

readings and the final, famous, warming ramp, a lot of statistical modeling aims at

removing known sources of exaggeration in the warming trend. In a new article in the

December 2007 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, Climatologist

Dr. Patrick Michaels and McKitrick concluded that the temperature manipulations for the

steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [IPCC] graph is an exaggeration. McKitrick

believes that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made

"false claims about the quality of its data." McKitrick reports in this new, peer-reviewed

study that data contamination problems "account for about half the surface warming

measured over land since 1980." (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist Gary England, who pioneered the use of Doppler radar weather-

forecasting, dismisses climate fears. "The climate has always been changing and it will

most likely always continue to change. In the distant past, we have been much colder than

we are now and we have been much warmer than we are now. And all of that happened

many times without humans," England wrote on July 1, 2007 in an article in Associated

Content. "Here in Oklahoma we're a little warmer than we were 30 years ago. Recently we

ended a two year drought and it has been replaced with significant, long duration rains. Is

all of this a result of global warming? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. You see, no one really

knows. If they say they do, I suggest that person is confused at best or has an agenda at the

worst," England explained. "An examination of ice core data is frequently used as proof

that CO2 heats the atmosphere. A close examination of that data shows that the air

temperature went up first and then the CO2 went up. Mars is loosing pole ice faster that

earth is loosing the same. As someone said recently, ‗It's the sun stupid!' Recent research

suggests that the activity of our sun combined with cosmic radiation from far outside our

galaxy interact with our atmosphere to produce effects never dreamed of a few years ago.

Is anything or everything in this paragraph correct? Nobody really knows," he concluded.

(LINK)

267

Chemical engineer Robert W. Hahn dismissed climate fears in an article titled

"Global Warming Skepticism" on July 5, 2007. "I remain very skeptical that carbon

dioxide is the primary cause and that humans either have caused it or can reverse it.

According to the data, the temperature near the surface of the Earth has warmed less than

one degree Celsius since 1880. That is not very much," Hahn wrote. "Carbon dioxide is not

a very potent greenhouse gas. Water vapor and atmospheric methane account for most of

the greenhouse effect, about 95 percent. Humans account for less than one-tenth of one

percent of the greenhouse gases and about three percent of the carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere. If we stopped burning all fossils fuels, including natural gas, coal, wood,

gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and the like, it would have very little effect," he added. "There is a

growing body of scientific evidence that the irradiance of our sun is the primary cause of

global warming. The sun is at a peak in activity, which drives off more cosmic radiation,

which in turn causes less cloud cover, which then warms the surface. Studies in

Copenhagen and most recently Canada have confirmed this correlation and have suggested

we are heading toward a cooling, not warming, period," he concluded. (LINK)

Economist Tim Curtin, a former advisor with the EU, World Bank, and an Emeritus

Faculty member of Australian National University, debunked the notion that global

warming would have serious economic consequences. In a June 29, 2007 paper titled "The

Da Vinci Code of Climate Change Economics," Curtin wrote, "This paper questions the

claims of the IPCC and the Stern Review that the predicted warming climate over the next

years will have serious adverse economic consequences for the poor everywhere and above

all in Africa. Finally, the paper suggests that attempts to reduce carbon emissions by

systems of caps and trades are unlikely to produce any net reductions in emissions." Curtin

explained, "With a little more inaction on the part of the government, we will with any luck

escape the horrors of carbon emission trading, with its associated armies of inspectors and

traders all engaged in an essentially unproductive and useless exercise - useless because

when permits have been issued to all current emitters at or pro rata within their current

level of emissions, the subsequent trades between emission cutters and emission increasers

can only produce ZERO net reduction emissions. In sum, Nicholas Stern's quest for the da

Vinci code that will save the globe may seem in retrospect as no more than another of those

episodes like the persecution of the Witches of Salem that occasionally beset the most

rational and well ordered societies." (LINK)

Scientist Michael Hammer who works as a research scientist/engineer for a high

technology manufacturer and major worldwide exporter based in Australia wrote a

June 20, 2007 paper titled "A Theoretical Analysis of the Effect of Greenhouse Gases in

the Atmosphere." The paper read, "A further hypothesis suggests that only a small portion

of the temperature rise is due to the direct action of carbon dioxide with much of the

remainder being due to positive feedback via water vapour. The total predicted temperature

rise for an increase in CO2 levels to 560 ppm is 2 - 4.5 degrees above current temperatures

with 3 degrees most likely. This spectroscopic-based analysis suggests that sensitivity to

both gases is likely to be far lower than would be required for such a scenario and does not

support either hypothesis. It suggests that an increase in CO2 concentration from the

current 379 ppm to 560 ppm is likely to cause a temperature increase of about 0.12 degrees

(0.22 degrees C for a change from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) and that the positive feedback

effect from water vapour should be less than 15% of this direct effect. These results are

about 20 times lower than the IPCC predictions." (LINK)

268

Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks is an Associate Professor of Environmental

Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia whose research has focused

flood and drought risk and seasonal climate prediction. A March 17, 2007 article in The

Australian newspaper explained Franks' climate views. Franks "is increasingly uneasy

about the dangerous path the debate is taking, where alternative views are discouraged and

reputations attacked and discredited. Franks says our understanding of the physics of

climate is still so limited, we cannot explain natural variability or predict when droughts

will break, or the when and why clouds form, which makes him wary of mainstream claims

projecting temperature changes over the next century. He argues that greenhouse gases in

the atmosphere account for only about 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the overall warming

effect, meaning even major increases in gases lead to only slight shifts in temperature:

between 0.5C and 1C. He is less certain than other dissenting scientists that variation in

solar activity is the cause, but doubts that greenhouse gases are the main driver of

temperature changes," the article stated. "It's clear that we don't understand enough of the

physics of climate to understand natural variability but I don't expect climate change from

CO2 to be particularly significant at any point in the future," Franks said. The article

continued, "Franks points to new modeling which has measured changes in the Earth's

albedo, or reflectance, driven mainly by cloud formation. The paper by a team of

geophysicists reported an unexplained decline in cloud cover until 1998, which caused the

Earth to absorb more heat from the atmosphere. This resulted in increases in incoming solar

radiation more than 10 times bigger than the same effect attributed to greenhouse gases.

Franks says the current IPCC models assume albedo is constant but such research should

be added to the body of knowledge, not excluded or rejected. ‗It's reached the point that

anyone who offers an open mind publicly is basically criticized and put down,' he says."

(LINK) Franks also wrote a June 2007 paper titled "Multi-decadal Climate Variability:

Flood and Drought - New South Wales" in which he concluded that "strong evidence of

multi-decadal climate variability" has dominated the climate. "Climate has never been

static!" Franks wrote. "Current drought cannot be directly linked to ‗climate change'" and

"El Niño/La Niña variability [is] due to natural processes," Franks wrote. (LINK)

Meteorologist Art Horn, currently operating The „Art' Of the Weather business, is

skeptical of man-made climate fears. "It is my belief that climate change is not a product of

human activity. Many other meteorologists feel this way," Horn wrote to EPW on May 29,

2007. "The debate on this issue is not over as many who will profit from the ‗Global

Warming industry' would like it to be. They stand to make millions if not billions of dollars

by creating a climate of fear, regulation, carbon offsets and taxes. The atmosphere is

regulated by changes in the solar output and it's affects on the oceans. These factors and

others impart a far greater influence on our climate than the very small amounts of carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a natural part of

the air. Humans are adding some additional amounts but it is a very small part of the total,"

Horn explained. "Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, five times

more effective at retaining heat from the sun and 50 to 100 times more plentiful in our

atmosphere. The news media has been using the fear of climate change due to humans as a

method of generating audience. Now every news program, documentary, newspaper,

magazine and Hollywood star is on the ‗bandwagon' to make money from something they

don't understand but stand to profit from. In a free society an open debate on this important

issue needs to take place, not the one sided drumbeat we get from the media," Horn

concluded.

269

Ivy League Organic Chemist Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield is a former Undersecretary of

Commerce for Economic Affairs, Professor Emeritus of the Wharton School of

Business at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Visiting Committee

for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago. "The earth has been subjected to

many warming and cooling periods over millions of years, none of which were of human

origin," Merrifield wrote on July 11, 2007. "Data from many independent sources have

mutually corroborated these effects. They include data from coring both the Antarctic ice

cap and sediments from the Sargasso Sea, from stalagmites, from tree rings, from up-

wellings in the oceans, and from crustaceans trapped in pre-historic rock formations. The

onset of each 100,000-year abrupt warming period has been coincident with emissions into

the atmosphere of large amounts of both carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases,

which absorb additional heat from the sun, a secondary warming effect," he explained.

"Solar radiation would appear to be the initial forcing event in which warming oceans

waters release dissolved carbon dioxide, and melt methane hydrates, both of which are

present in the oceans in vast quantities. Subsequent declines in radiation are associated with

long cooling periods in which the green house gases then gradually disappear (are re-

absorbed) into terrestrial and ocean sinks, as reflected in the data from coring the Antarctic

Ice Cap and Sargasso Sea," he added. "The current 100 year solar radiation cycle may now

have reached its peak, and irradiation intensity has been observed to be declining. This

might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the

atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-

sourced industrial-based green house gases. While it seems likely that solar radiation,

rather than human activity, is the ‗forcing agent' for global warming, the subject surely

needs more study," he concluded. (LINK)

Oxford-educated Geochemist Dr. Cal Evans, a prominent researcher who has advised

the Alberta Research Council, the Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research

Council of Canada, and who is affiliated with the Calgary-based group Friends of

Science, dismissed climate fears in 2007. "The primary process that governs global

temperature cycles has been identified - it's a combination of solar irradiation and high-

energy cosmic rays. Carbon dioxide appears to be a very minor factor. Although the

political forces that support the CO2 theory remain formidable, the science has turned

decisively against them," Evans said according to an article on July 9, 2007. "Yes, there's

been an increase [in CO2] but the quantity remains extremely small, no more than a trace

element," Evans said. "Whatever causes global warming must involve clouds and other

atmospheric vapour. To date, no one has been able to identify a link between higher CO2

concentrations and greater volumes of atmospheric water vapour," he added. "The slight

increase in ground temperature has no parallel in the troposphere. If atmospheric CO2

concentration was actually a significant factor in global warming, it stands to reason that

atmospheric temperatures would rise but that hasn't happened," he said. "It's ironic that

CO2 propaganda has achieved an unprecedented degree of political penetration in Canada

and the United States precisely at the same time that the scientific case is melting away.

Billions of dollars in research funding and related activity are at stake, and so are a great

many professional reputations. So the truth will certainly be inconvenient for someone, and

the struggle won't end for a while yet. Eventually, however, the facts will make themselves

known," he concluded. (LINK)

270

Dr. Peter Ridd, a Reader in Physics at James Cook University in Australia who

specializes in Marine Physics and who is also a scientific adviser to the Australian

Environment Foundation, dismissed the idea of a "consensus" on man-made global

warming. "It should be apparent that scientists and politicians such as Al Gore, who have

been telling us that the science is unquestionable on this issue, have been stretching the

truth," Ridd, who has authored over 60 publications in scientific journals, wrote on July 19,

2007. "It seems that there are some good reasons to believe that we may have been

swindled," Ridd added. Ridd also debunked fears of global warming negatively impacting

coral reefs. "Just as canaries were used to detect gas in coal mines, coral reefs are the

canaries of the world, and their death is a first indication of our apocalyptic greenhouse

future. The bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 were our warning. Heed them now or

retribution will be visited upon us. In fact a more appropriate creature with which to

compare corals would be cockroaches - at least for their ability to survive. If our future

brings us total self-annihilation by nuclear war, pollution or global warming, my bet is that

both cockroaches and corals will survive. Their track-record is impressive," Ridd

explained. "Corals have survived 300 million years of massively varying climate both

much warmer and much cooler than today, far higher CO2 levels than we see today, and

enormous sea level changes. Corals saw the dinosaurs come and go, and cruised through

mass extinction events that left so many other organisms as no more than a part of the fossil

record. Corals are particularly well adapted to temperature changes and in general, the

warmer the better. It seems odd that coral scientists are worrying about global warming

because this is one group of organisms that like it hot. Corals are most abundant in the

tropics and you certainly do not find fewer corals closer to the equator. Quite the opposite,

the further you get away from the heat, the worse the corals. A cooling climate is a far

greater threat. The scientific evidence about the effect of rising water temperatures on

corals is very encouraging," he added. "Why does a scientist and environmentalist such as

myself worry about a little exaggeration about the reef? Surely it's better to be safe than

sorry. To a certain extent it is, however, the scientist in me worries about the credibility of

science and scientists. We cannot afford to cry wolf too often or our credibility will fall to

that of used car salesmen and estate agents - if it is not there already. The environmentalist

in me worries about the misdirection of scarce resources if we concentrate on ‗saving' a

system such as the Great Barrier Reef," he concluded.

Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National

Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish

National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the

European Space Agency. Friis-Christensen co-authored a paper along with physicist

Henrik Svensmark on Thursday, July 19, 2007, entitled "What Do We Really Know

about the Sun-Climate Connection?" The paper stated, "The sun is the source of the

energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate.

Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect

climate. During stable conditions there has to be a balance between the energy received

from the sun and the energy that the Earth radiates back into Space. This energy is mainly

radiated in the form of long wave radiation corresponding to the mean temperature of the

Earth." The study continued, "From historical and geological records we know that the

Earth's climate has always been changing. Sometimes such changes have been relatively

abrupt and have apparently had large sociological effects." In October 2007, Friis-

Christensen and Physicist Henrik Svensmark, co-authored another report from the Danish

271

National Space Center Study concluding: ―The Sun still appears to be the main forcing

agent in global climate change.‖ (LINK) Friis-Christensen has authored or co-authored

around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics. (LINK)

UK atmospheric scientist John Kettley, formerly of the Met Office and the Fluid

Dynamics Department at the Bracknell headquarters, dismissed the linkage of wild

weather in the summer of 2007 in England to global warming. "In my view, none of the

severe weather we have experienced is proof of 'climate change.' It is just a poor summer -

nothing more, nothing less - something that was the norm throughout most of the Sixties

and has been repeated on several occasions more recently," Kettley, a former meteorologist

with the BBC, wrote in an op-ed on July 22, 2007 titled "Global Warming? No, Just an

Old-Style British Summer." "To many, the black skies and fierce rains must have seemed

an ominous portent of things to come: symptomatic of the environmental ravages of global

warming. But, however extreme the weather we have experienced over the past few days,

its significance in meteorological terms is likely to be more prosaic. This year's apparently

extraordinary weather is no more sinister than a typical British summer of old and a

reminder of why Mediterranean holidays first became so attractive to us more than 40 years

ago," Kettley wrote. "Going further back, history also shows that 1912 was an atrocious

summer. It was so bad, in fact, that we are still some way short of the torrential downpours

that happened that year. It seemed particularly bad at the time because 1911 had been such

an exceptionally good summer. So, taking a long view, there is a pattern of warming and

cooling. The Edwardians were experiencing a period of significant warming (much like

now) following a cold Victorian spell. There was a period of warming from the Twenties

through to the end of the Fifties and, after a cooler period, there has been a further

significant warming over the past 20 years," he added. "In the final analysis, this summer

may be just such a 'blip' in the charts," he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Geologist Gabriel Salas, who leads a UN High Commission for Refugees funded team,

rejected the idea that man-made global warming was causing droughts in Africa. A July 27,

2007 article in The Christian Science Monitor reported, "Salas, as a geologist, doesn't see

the problem of global warming as a recent phenomenon, but as something that has been

going on for thousands of years." "The attack of Rome by Hannibal happened 2,400 years

ago, and he took elephants from Carthage and marched them toward Rome. Now, the fact

that you had elephants in the North of Africa shows that there has been climate change and

that desertification has been taking place for a long time," Salas said. (LINK)

Former New Zealand Science Ministry analyst Don Stewart, a UK-based researcher

in geological and biological history, said, "The residual ice caps and glaciers we see today

have shrunk considerably since 2450 BC. Furthermore, British reports from navigators and

explorers since Elizabethan times show that there has been a significant retreat since those

first empirical observations available to us from their logs written up to 200 years before

the Industrial Revolution that is often falsely blamed for global warming." "Although the

pollution of 200 years of carbon-based industrial activity may have contributed a miniscule

factor, either reducing or increasing the already-rising atmospheric temperatures, the

globe's own natural heat from molten lava and iron at its core, in addition to the sun's rays

heating the atmosphere, means that the ice caps could not exist forever anyway and in fact

now look like disappearing altogether within 4500 years (2450 BC - 2050 AD) of their

formation." Stewart dismissed claims that UK floods were evidence of man-made global

272

warming. "At the moment, we really have insufficient empirical evidence to conclude that

is true," he added. (LINK)

Chemist Frank Britton rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "CO2 makes a very

small contribution to the Earth's temperature. It is only 0.039 percent of the atmosphere.

Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and argon comprise more than 99 percent of the

atmosphere. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not a particularly effective greenhouse gas. Out

of the wide spectrum of radiation received from the sun, CO2 only absorbs energy from

three very narrow levels," Britton wrote in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star

titled "Global Warming is Nature's Doing." "Many people believe there is a difference

between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is

comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of

biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the

CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites," Britton explained. "Global-

warming activists believe mankind is altering the Earth's temperature. Although many

know that man's contribution is negligible, it is not to their political advantage to reveal this

fact. Climate scientists receive funding from the government to research causes of and

solutions to man-made global warming. If the current warming were demonstrated to be the

natural cycle, this funding would be cut," he added. "Carbon dioxide's contribution to

global warming is minimal; water vapor is the great buffer for the Earth's temperature; the

oceans control this process. Human beings have no measurable control over global

temperatures," he concluded. (LINK)

Dr. John Brignell is a UK Emeritus Engineering Promfessor at the University of

Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton and

was awarded the Callendar Silver Medal by InstMC. He also served on a committee

of the Institute of Physics and currently publishes the website

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ with the mission to expose "scares, scams, junk, panics

and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and

others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers." His motto is "Working to

Combat Math Hysteria." "Global warming is a new phenomenon in human affairs. Not

only is it now a major religion, but it has an associated industrial complex of a wealth

sufficient to give it unheard of political power throughout the world. It presides over a

virtual monopoly of research funding," Brignell wrote in July 2007. (LINK) "Clearly,

global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is

manufactured from two sources - careless data acquisition and dubious data processing,"

Brignell wrote. In November 2007, Brignell, who wrote a book entitled Sorry, Wrong

Number: The Abuse of Measurement, compiled a list of over 600 things allegedly caused

by global warming. To see the full list with weblinks to the source, see here: (LINK)

Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of

Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma, rejected man-made climate

fears in 2007. "Is their any solid evidence the earth is warming due to man's use of fossil

fuels transferring excessive amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere? The answer is NO!" Blick

wrote on June 17, 2007 in an article titled "The Religions of Global Warming." "The

amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere each year is about 3 billion tons per year.

But this is insignificant compared to the 39,000 billion tons in our oceans, 2,200 billion

tons in our vegetation and soils, and 750 billion tons in our atmosphere. Much of the CO2

273

generated by man is consumed by vegetation," Blick explained. "Man cannot control the

weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or

eliminating the fuel that we use," Blick added. He also questioned the accuracy of

temperature gathering. "At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union (around 1990), they

could not afford their weather stations in Siberia, so they were closed. Hence, with the loss

of the cooler temperature data from Siberia and rural stations in other countries, coupled

with the heat island effects of the large city stations, and errors in thermometers of the

1800's, any increase in the average earth temperature in the past may be an illusion," he

wrote. "CO2 is not poison and it is not our enemy. CO2 and oxygen are the twin gases of

life. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants breathe in CO2, make

carbohydrates, and breathe out oxygen. We feed the plants and they feed us," Blick wrote.

(LINK)

Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State

University and a former project scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, expressed skepticism of man-made climate fears. An August 2007

article reported that "while Taylor believes entirely in global warming, he hasn't yet jumped

on the popular Inconvenient Truth bandwagon. ‗I don't know how much people have

caused,' he says. ‗Nobody really knows ... but what I do know is that we had a global

cooling period from around the middle 1800s to around 1900, global warming from 1900 to

around 1940, global cooling again from 1940 to 1972, and global warming since 1972.

Thermometers have measured this for us.'" The article continued, "Taylor accepts that

global warming is occurring. But he says the extent to which man is contributing to its

acceleration is debatable...he says the popular theories floated by the likes of Al Gore may

be slightly overcooked. ‗I think people are exaggerating the idea that all of the temperature

change occurring on Earth is being caused by this,' he says. ‗They shouldn't be saying that.

Because pretty soon we could discover that these things are only partially true. And then

people, feeling misled, won't do anything.'" The article added, "Taylor is reluctant to blame

human activity-specifically, increased emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide-

for [global warming's] apparent acceleration? Because the bigger picture tells him there are

more powerful cycles at play. He justifies his pragmatic position with convincing anecdotal

evidence from the story he tells about Greenland's super-thick ice cap starting to melt back

and revealing that humans inhabited the place 1,400 years ago. ‗You could have taken your

ship across the North Pole late in the summer then, too,' he says. ‗So what we've discovered

is there have been occasions throughout history when sea ice in the North Pole would go

away during certain times of the year and other spans of history where the ice was

essentially permanent. These things go back and forth. We wonder now if there was ever a

time when there was no glacier on top of Greenland at all. Geologists say yes-a short 3

million years ago we didn't have any permanent year-round ice on the planet. These things

come and go in natural cycles.'" (LINK) & (LINK)

Meteorologist Dr. Fred Ward, who earned his PhD in Meteorology from MIT and is a

former meteorologist for Boston TV, ridiculed what he termed "global warming zealots."

"Good, worldwide temperature data are available for less than a century, but that hasn't

stopped the alarmists from quoting what are called ‗temperature' data extending back to the

Romans. Such data are not temperatures, but proxies which are claimed to measure

temperature," Ward wrote in the New Hampshire Union Leader on July 16, 2007. "Such

proxies include tree rings, ice cores and the like, but they all suffer from one serious

274

limitation. The proxies can be calculated from the weather, but the weather cannot be

calculated from the proxies. The brief reason is that many different weather elements work

in complex ways to produce the proxy," he added. "Finally, for those of you old enough to

read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature. The

same ‗if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late' statements were published, on

the covers of reputable papers and magazines, by many of the same ‗scientists,' and for

many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that

the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling! How times change, while

people don't," he concluded. (LINK)

A 2006 study of Greenland by a team of scientists debunked fears of Greenland

melting. The study led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and

Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50%

higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide „could not be the cause' of

warming. (LINK) "We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in

recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930

and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was

about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005," the abstract of the study read. The peer-

reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters,

found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, "the years 2004 and

2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930s and

1940s." The study further continued, "Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at

Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average."

In addition, the Chylek-led study explained, "Although there has been a considerable

temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster

rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide

or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930

demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not

a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005

temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A

general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990s can be a

contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean

[Hoerling et al., 2001]." "To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims

that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased

atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide." The co-authors of the study were M.K.

Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.

Chylek has authored over 100 studies in peer-reviewed journals. Chylek was one of the 60

scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime

minister Stephen Harper which stated, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know

today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have

concluded it was not necessary." (LINK)

Former California State Climatologist Jim Goodridge, a consultant for the California

Department of Water Resources, authored a July 28, 2007 paper noting the impact of

the sun on climate change. "Evidence for climate variation is inferred from the sunspot

numbers. The ‗Solar Constant' sunspot relationship clearly suggests a long-range historic

view of solar irradiance from 1500. The solar irradiance has been clearly increasing since

1940. The Maunder Minimum of sunspot numbers from 1660 to 1710 was clearly a time of

275

worldwide cold temperatures. The year 1816 was known as the year without a summer,"

Goodridge wrote. Goodridge also blamed natural factors for the increase in temperatures in

California since the 1970s. "The evidence for a major climate shift since the mid 1970s is

quite real. California indices of rainfall and temperature have both shown an increasing

trend since 1975. Physical changes in Earth weather systems that accompany the 1975

weather trend changes include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index, a 1975 change

in the Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM) index and a 1940 increase in solar

irradiance," he explained. "A comparison of the accumulated departure from average of the

California temperature and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (PDO) indices indicate

both peaking about 1943 and generally declining until the major climate shift of 1975.

Again, this suggests a 35-year lag time in solar influence," he added. (LINK)

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-

made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such

a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in

honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to

prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in

their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his

scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic that he recently wrote a book

titled The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming. A November

15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto

house," saying, "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and

‗red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures."

Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been

warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and

we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming

and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a

science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting

climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money

into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,"

he said.

Dr. Denis Dutton, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury

in New Zealand and recipient of the New Zealand Royal Society Medal for Services to

Science and Technology, teaches a course on the distinction between science and

pseudoscience. Dr. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which human activity has

contributed to the general warming trend that began in the 1880s. "Working at the

university where Karl Popper taught in the 1940s, I am more than a little aware of the way

that adequate scientific hypotheses must always be open to falsification. The best way for

science and public policy to proceed is to continuously assess evidence pro and con for

anthropogenic global warming," Dutton wrote to EPW on December 4, 2007. "Climate

alarmists in particular are too prone to cherry-pick evidence that suits their case, ignoring

factors that might disprove it," he added. Dutton recently founded the website Climate

Debate Daily, which he co-edits with Douglas Campbell (http://climatedebatedaily.com).

Professor Emeritus Peter R Odell of International Energy Studies at the University of

Rotterdam questioned why global temperatures have not increased since 1998. "The UK's

Meteorological Office research centre has now had to confirm a fall in average global

276

temperatures since 1998. This clearly opens to challenge the widely-held view that it is

primarily the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, released by mankind's use of carbon

fuels, that cause global warming," Odell wrote on August 13 in an unpublished letter to the

UK Guardian newspaper. "Indeed, since 1998 there has been a record near-25% increase in

the production and use of coal, oil and natural gas - totaling an additional 2000 million tons

of oil equivalent over the nine year period. Two-fifths of this has been coal, the most

polluting of the three carbon fuels, so generating voluminous additional carbon dioxide for

the atmosphere. Yet, in spite of an all-time peak period of carbon fuels' use, it seems that

no overall global warming phenomenon has been generated!" Odell wrote. "Thus, instead

of the Met Office's think-tank apparent acceptance of the concept of a demonstrable

relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions for its future forecasts,

should it not first be held responsible for an explanation as to why this has not happened

over the past nine years - and why it will not happen for at least the next three years?" he

asked.

UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The Sun: A

Biography, detailed the sun's significant influence on the climate. "Something is happening

to our sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going

signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our sun has

suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc.

We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to

return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a

while now with no sign it's on its way any time soon," Whitehouse wrote on December 5,

2007 in the UK Independent. "Throughout the 20th century, solar cycles had been

increasing in strength. Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the

solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the sun's

activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years. Other solar parameters

have been changing as well, such as the magnetic field the sun sheds, which has almost

doubled in the past century," Whitehouse explained. "Since [1998] average temperatures

have held at a high, though steady, level. Many computer climate projections suggest that

the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years. But those projections do not

take into account the change in the sun's behaviour. The tardiness of cycle 24 indicates that

we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made

greenhouse temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say

we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in

solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the sun's reduced activity may

cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020. This is larger than most sensible

predictions of man-made global warming over this period," he added. (LINK)

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former UN IPCC lead author and

reviewer and an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth,

Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, called fears of man-made global warming "silly" in

January 31, 2007 CNN interview. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves

in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said.

"Nobody's arguing that man has zero impact on the climate. But the question is can you

distinguish it from all the other stuff going on? And I think the answer is still no," Lindzen

told the Weather Channel on January 14, 2007. "Controlling carbon is kind of a

bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," he also told the Weather

277

Channel on March 31, 2007. Lindzen dismisses "solutions" to global warming like

changing light bulbs to fluorescent or participating in the Kyoto Protocol. "If you had a

decision to make which actually would matter, then, of course it would be a very difficult

situation," Lindzen said in an April 28, 2007 CBS Chicago TV special "The Truth About

Global Warming." "One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those

things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the

question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no-

brainer," he said. (LINK) Lindzen also explained the UN's IPCC Summary for

Policymakers involves only a dozen or so scientists. "It's not 2,500 people offering their

consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in

conjunction with someone else...but ultimately, it is written by representatives of

governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and

industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit," Lindzen said. "At present, the

greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling

of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the

industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform-warming has largely occurred during the

periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers

have been unable to explain this discrepancy," Lindzen wrote in the April 16, 2007 issue of

Newsweek. (LINK)

Astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia,

specializes in statistical analysis and astrophysics research, and was a former

operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore, MD.

Wilson declared man-made global warming fears "bit the dust" after a 2007 peer-reviewed

study found that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have an

alarming impact on global temperatures. "Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming

bites the dust," declared Wilson about the study titled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and

Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist

Stephen Schwartz. "Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend

trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in an

August 19, 2007 note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Wilson was

referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global

warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol. "Previously, I have indicated that the widely

accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too

high, i.e. 2 - 4.5 Kelvin. I indicated that a figure closer to 1 Kelvin (corresponding to an

increase in the world mean temperature of ~ 0.1 K per decade) was more appropriate. This

new peer-reviewed paper by Stephen Schwartz appearing in the Journal of Geophysical

Research claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2," he added.

(LINK)

Geologist Dr. Al Pekarek, professor of geology, earth and atmospheric sciences at St.

Cloud State University, ridicules man-made global warming fears as a "media circus."

"Climate is a very complex system, and anyone who claims we know all there is to know

about it, let's say, is charitably misinformed or chooses to be," Pekarek said according to a

September 7, 2007 article. "We fool ourselves if we think we have a sufficiently well-

understood model of the climate that we can really predict. We can't," he explained.

"Geologists know that the Earth's climate has done this all the time in its history. We also

know that man has not been around very long and could not have caused that. So we know

278

that there are many natural forces that have caused our climate to change," he continued.

"Those of us who don't jump on the bandwagon - we're called deniers and Hitlers and I

don't know what all else. Some of us have been threatened - I think some with their life, but

more it's trying to destroy our reputations," Pekarek added. He also pulled no punches in

criticizing former Vice President Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, calling the

film "a total misrepresentation of science." He dismissed computer model fears of a

climate doomsday. "It's an abuse of science. They are misquoting science. They are

misusing science. They are making predictions of dire consequences in the name of science

that will not come true, and science will lose its credibility," he explained. "In some of our

schools, we are scaring the hell out of our kids. ... They think they have no future," he said.

"In 10 years, you won't hear anything about global warming," he concluded. (LINK)

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer

at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently

converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears

"poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said

that "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous

amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change

people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove

anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion concerning global warming did not come

without a sacrifice, as several environmental groups have ended their association with him

because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's

long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from

hard-line environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other

endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting

down a rainforest." On July 1, 2007, in an op-ed titled "THE GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH," Bellamy called man-made catastrophic global warming promotion "a political

football that has lost its foundations in real science." "There are no facts linking the

concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming,

there are only predictions based on complex computer models," he explained. Bellamy

turned his skepticism on Gore, asking "Why scare the families of the world with tales that

polar bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence that there are now twice

as many of these iconic animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years

ago? Why cry wolf on a rise in the spread of malaria thanks to rising temperatures when

this mosquito borne disease was a main killer of people throughout the Little Ice Age in

Britain and northern Russia?" (LINK) (LINK)

Naturalist Nigel Marven is a trained zoologist and botanist and a UK wildlife

documentary maker who spent three months studying and filming polar bears in

Canada's arctic in 2007. Marven expressed skepticism about fears that global warming

would devastate polar bears. "I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar

bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just

scaremongering. People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show

they are dying out. That's not right," Marven said according to a December 7, 2007 article

in the UK Daily Mail. "Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the

bears will be in trouble. But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the

brink of extinction," Marven added. The article also noted that indigenous residents of the

Arctic also reject polar bear fears. "After almost three months of working with those who

279

know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal

they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for ‗misinformed' Greens -

Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement," the article reported. (LINK) & (LINK)

Nobel Prize-winning Economist Gary S. Becker, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover

Institution and University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of

Chicago, debunked the notion that acting now to reduce greenhouse gases will save in the

long run. "Future generations would be better off if the present generation, instead of

investing the $800 billion in greenhouse gas-reducing technologies, invested the same

amount in capital that would be available to future generations," Becker wrote on February

4, 2007. "One criticism of this argument is that if the resources were not invested in

reducing greenhouse gases, they would not be invested in other capital that would accrue to

future generations. Perhaps not. But bear in mind that during the past 150 years, more

recent generations in the United States and other developed and developing nations have

been much better off than earlier generations when measured by income, health, education,

and virtually all other important criteria," Becker explained. "This rising standard of living

across generations has been achieved mainly through advances in technology, and generous

savings and investments for children and grandchildren by parents and their elected

representatives. Why should this fundamental aspect of family and public behavior change

as a result of the accumulation of the harmful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?" he

wrote. "Discounting is sensible behavior. Common sense also suggests that technologies

will be much improved in the future, including those that can improve health, income, and

the environment. Put differently, later generations have benefited from large and continuing

advances in technologies of all kinds in the past 150 years, including those related to the

environment," he added. (LINK)

Lev Zeleny, director of the Institute of Space Research at the Russian Academy of

Sciences and an Academy corresponding member, rejects man-made climate fears.

According to a September 28, 2007 article in the Russian publication RIA Novosti, Zeleny

"believes that before making Kyoto Protocol-like decisions, we should thoroughly study

the influence of all factors and receive more or less unequivocal results. In order to treat an

illness, we must diagnose it first, he insists." Zeleny noted, "Judging by Venus, a planet,

which is similar to the Earth in all respects, we can see how far this can go. The

temperature on its surface is about 500° C (mostly due to a greenhouse effect). At one time,

Venus did not have a layer of clouds, and this is probably when it was warmed up by the

Sun, causing a greenhouse effect. What if the Sun is responsible for the warming of our

climate?" Zeleny asked. "There are two channels of energy transfer from the Sun -

electromagnetic and corpuscular radiation," he explained. "The bulk of it - about 1.37 kW

per square meter of the Earth's surface - which equals the power of an electric kettle -

comes via the electromagnetic channel. This flow of energy primarily fits into the visible

and infrared range of the spectrum and its amount is virtually immune to change - it alters

by no more than a few fractions of a percent. It is called the 'solar constant.' The flow of

energy reaches the Earth in eight minutes and is largely absorbed by its atmosphere and

surface. It has decisive influence on the shaping of our climate," Zeleny said. "Solar wind

becomes more intense when the Sun is active. It sweeps space rays out of the solar system

like a broom," he added. "This affects cloud formation, which cools off both the

atmosphere and the whole planet. We know from historic records that it was quite cold in

1350-1380. The Sun was very active during this time," he said. "Some dangers are much

280

less discussed today, for instance, the inversion of the Earth's magnetic field," Zeleny

warns. "It is gradually changing its polarity; the poles are crawling to the equator at

increasing speed. There were whole epochs in the Earth's history when the magnetic field

all but disappeared. Such oscillations have taken place throughout almost its entire

geological history," he concluded. (LINK)

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore's film to "fiction" in an on air

broadcast on October 4, 2007. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore's An

Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano

applauded the judge saying, "Finally, finally." Marciano then added, "The Oscars, they give

out awards for fictional films as well." Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming

hurricanes and global warming were linked. (LINK)

Geologist C. Robert Shoup authored a summer 2007 scientific study for the American

Association of Petroleum Geologists in which he debunked global warming fears. "The

hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not yet meet the basic scientific

standards of proof needed to be accepted as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted

fact," Shoup wrote in the study titled "Science Under Attack." Shoup concluded, "A

comprehensive review of the climate data suggests that many global warming advocates do

not present data that is contradictory to their beliefs. In addition, the constant call to end

debate and silence scientists who challenge the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global

Warming is a violation of scientific protocol and has the affect of suppressing healthy

scientific debate."

Horticulturalist Alan Titchmarch, a prominent naturalist who hosts the popular "The

Nature of Britain" program on the BBC, received the Royal Horticultural Society‟s

highest award – the Victoria Medal of Honor – for outstanding services to

horticulture. Titchmarch also joined the climate skeptics in 2007. "Our climate has always

changed," Titchmarch said according to an October 6, 2007 article in the UK Telegraph. "I

wish we could grow up about it," he explained, "I'm sure we are contributing to global

warming, and we must do all we can to reduce that, but our climate has always changed.

The Romans had vineyards in Yorkshire. We're all on this bandwagon of ‗Ban the 4x4 in

Fulham'. Why didn't we have global warming during the Industrial Revolution? In those

days you couldn't have seen across the street for all the carbon emissions and the crap

coming out of the chimneys," he said. Titchmarch also rejected fears of warming induced

species loss. "We'll lose some, we'll gain others. Wildlife is remarkably tenacious. Nature

always copes," he said. (LINK)

Alexandre Amaral de Aguiar, communications director for Brazil‟s MetSul Weather

Center and weatherman for Ulbra TV in Porto Alegre, Brazil, debunked former Vice

President Al Gore's science claims in 2007. "It was exactly 10 years ago today. October

14th 1997. The guest in the El Niño Community Preparedness Summit in Santa Monica,

California, was the Vice President of the United States Al Gore. It was another opportunity

to him to propagate the scary vision of a warmed globe. The main point was the super El

Niño event of that year. Gore took advantage of the scene to forecast a future without

(cooling) La Niña events. El Niño (warming) events, according to him and his fellow

scientists, would become permanent," Aguiar wrote on October 14, 2007 on the skeptical

website IceCap.US. "Gore's theory bankrupted exactly ten years after its release. The

281

largest ocean in Earth is much colder than average and global climate starts to feel the

impacts of a moderate La Niña event that may reach the strong threshold," Aguiar

explained. "It will take some more years for ‗Mother Nature' to dismiss some or all of Gore

forecasts, but earlier predictions made by him are already proving to be an inconvenient

mistake," he concluded. (LINK) [Note: Amaral de Aguiar is not part of the count in this

report.]

Chief Meteorologist Karl Spring of Duluth, Minnesota, who is certified by both the

American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, expressed

skepticism of former Vice President Al Gore's climate views. On the day Gore's Nobel

Prize was announced in October 2007, Spring declared on KUWS radio, "I wouldn't pay a

dime to see [An Inconvenient Truth] for many reasons." Spring then ridiculed Gore.

"Politically, he's a left-wing nut. And he does things for other agendas." He added that

Gore "takes facts and extrapolates them to such extremes," and he projects "a doomsday

scenario." Meteorologist Kyly Underwood joined Spring in dismissing Gore's scientific

opinions during on KUWS radio. "We need to be careful about where we get our

information on global warming, and this debate unfortunately is driven by politicians."

(LINK) & (LINK)

Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be „Excessively Exaggerated' -

Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed

journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics noted that "although the CO2 greenhouse

effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively

exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global

climate change." The study looked at "multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes"

and concluded "that ‗global climate will be cooling down in the next 20 years.'" The

scientists concluded that even if atmospheric CO2 were to stabilize, "the CO2 greenhouse

effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the

following 20 years." "The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2

greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however

atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2

greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively

exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes," Zhen-Shan and

Xian concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark released a report with his colleagues at the Danish

National Space Centre which shows that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low

cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. "We have the highest solar

activity we have had in at least 1,000 years," Svensmark said in the February 11, 2007

article in the UK Telegraph. "Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not

including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate. The size of

man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than

predicted," Svensmark said. Svensmark published his finding on the influence that cosmic

rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal in late 2006

and he has a new 2007 book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

"It was long-thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that

climate change is driven by clouds," Svensmark said. In October 2007, Svensmark co-

authored another report from the Danish National Space Center Study concluding: ―The

282

Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.‖ The report was

authored with Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK)

Air resources engineer Tom Scheffelin, who estimates on-road vehicle emissions for

the California Air Resources Board, declared himself a climate skeptic in 2007. "Does

carbon dioxide affect the climate? Carbon dioxide levels track temperature changes

between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature has changed. Carbon dioxide has no

direct role in global warming; rather, it responds to biological activity, which responds to

climate changes," Scheffelin wrote in a November 5, 2007 article titled "Global Warming

Causes Carbon Dioxide." Scheffelin critiqued what he termed "the quasi-religious fervor

surrounding global warming." He explained, "Cyclic global warming is normal and must

occur no matter what anyone does or does not do. The most frequent global climate cycle is

caused by the ocean's response to the orbits of the earth and moon." Scheffelin continued,

"Carbon dioxide levels track temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the

temperature has changed. Carbon dioxide has no direct role in global warming; rather, it

responds to biological activity, which responds to climate changes." He concluded by

issuing a warning to the public about climate fears. "Beware future radical government

mandates designed to save the planet. What can one do? Elect legislators who do not fall

prey to the global warming hysteria. Walk or bicycle as often as possible; the world is a

better place when experienced on foot or by bicycle. Grow two ears of corn where before

only one ear grew (Gulliver's Travels). Stop worrying over global warming; worry causes

poor health. Study geology, it's fascinating. Enjoy life during this, the most productive, safe

and healthful era in the history of mankind," he concluded. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in

NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center

who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a

skeptic of man-made global warming fears. "10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000

feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two

thousand year period, we went into today's climate and the cause of that change is not,

well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened," Walcek said according to a

November 6, 2007 article. (LINK) In a separate May 5, 2007 interview, Walcek expanded

on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having

"exaggerated" part of his film. "A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as

far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent

committee of scientists concluded that there isn't a strong correlation between climate

change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we're going to see more Katrina's

and there's just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the

last hundred years and we're probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,"

Walcek said. "We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have

had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany" New York, he

added. (LINK) & (LINK)

Environmental expert Sergei Golubchikov, Vice President of Russia's National

Geocryological Foundation, expressed skepticism of man-made global warming in 2007.

"Humanity is focusing environmental efforts on the boogeyman of global warming,"

Golubchikov wrote in a November 8, 2007 article in RIA Novosti. "Environmental phobias

go hand in hand with technological civilization. Anxiety over climate change is carried too

283

far, to my mind," Golubchikov continued. "Anxiety easily turns to panic, forcing the world

into hasty, and possibly wrong, steps. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, was ratified even

before the link between global warming and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere had been proved," Golubchikov explained. "But is the gas [CO2] so bad? It is

no poison, and plants need it as much as we humans need our daily bread. At present it

makes up a mere 0.037% of the atmosphere. Greater concentrations cause plant life to

flourish-especially forests, the greatest absorbers of greenhouse gases. If the release of

carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were suddenly stopped, the earth's plant life would

consume that remaining in a matter of 8-11 years. After that they would curl up and die.

Every living thing on earth would be doomed with them," he wrote. "As 95% of the world's

carbon dioxide is dissolved in saline water, global warming makes the sea the principal

source of emissions, leaving industry far behind. To my mind, international agreements

should instead seek to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbonic and nitric oxides,

benzpyrene, soot, heavy metals and other toxic substances responsible for causing cancer

and mutations. These are, in fact, the greatest environmental challenge to governments and

the public," he added. (LINK)

Aeronautical engineer Bob Edleman, former Chief Engineer of Boeing's Electronic

Systems Division who also worked as a software engineer in data reduction and flight

simulation, expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears promoted in former Vice

President Al Gore's film. "My conclusion is that the movie is mostly misleading and, yes,

we'd better stop the ideological wrangling and consider the facts," Edelman wrote on

October 4, 2007. "There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in

science. Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around," he added. (LINK)

Geologists Dr. George Chilingar, and L.F. Khilyuk of the University of Southern

California authored a December 2006 study in the peer-reviewed journal

Environmental Geology which found warming temperatures were due to natural factors,

not mankind. "The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased

solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact

on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately

0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)," the paper

concluded. "Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide

emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less

than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during

geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon

dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation

processes changing the Earth's climate," Chilingar and Khilyuk added. Chilingar is a

professor of civil and petroleum engineering at UCLA and is the former president of the

U.S. chapter of the Russian Academy Sciences. (LINK) & (LINK)

Chemist Dr. Daniel W. Miles, a former professor of physics who earned his PhD from

the University of Utah, expressed skepticism of climate fears in 2007. "It is very apparent

from a dozen or so peer-reviewed scientific articles that fluctuations in cosmic radiation

have an important impact on climate change," Miles wrote in a November 8, 2007 essay

titled "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Not Overwhelming." "It is claimed that

even if the carbon dioxide concentration in the air were doubled, its greenhouse effect

would be canceled by a mere one percent rise in cloudiness. The reason is simply that

284

greater cloudiness means a larger deflection of the solar radiation away from the surface of

our planet," he wrote. "The more intense the influx of cosmic rays, the more clouds.

Cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water

vapor, where the ice crystals - from which clouds are created - are formed. The quantity of

cosmic rays impacting the atmosphere is controlled by changes in the so-called solar wind -

when the winds are stronger, they drive cosmic radiation away from the Earth, fewer

clouds are formed and the Earth becomes warmer," Miles explained. (LINK)

Engineer David Holland authored a November 2007 study titled "Bias and

Concealment in the IPCC Process: The „Hockey-Stick' Affair and its Implications"

which was published in the scientific journal Energy & Environment. Holland also

wrote a 2006 critique of the Stern Review for World Economics. Holland, who is a member

of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, critiqued modern climate science

methods and the UN IPCC process. "[Climate science] is by all measures as important a

field of research as medicine, and ought to operate to standards at least as high, but it does

not. On the contrary, it is steeped in bias, concealment and spin," Holland, wrote in his

November paper for Energy & Environment. "Strong and well-founded scientific

disagreement remains," he wrote. Holland took the IPCC to task. "The IPCC's governing

principles are interpreted loosely, for example the strong scientific and statistical

disagreements expressed by reviewers are not adequately, if at all, recorded in IPCC

reports. Unpublished papers supporting IPCC orthodoxy are included even though their

supporting data and methodology are not available. The use of non-disclosure agreements

runs entirely counter to the IPCC's role," he wrote. (LINK)

Meteorologist Morgan Palmer of Texas TV's KLTV, who holds Seals of

Approval from both the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National

Weather Association (NWA), declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in

2007. "Any idea can become mainstream if you just hear one side of the argument," Palmer

said on November 8, 2007. Palmer called man-made warming a theory and accused

proponents of becoming political. "It is because of money," Palmer explained. "Folks that

are writing these papers that a lot of institutions are going after grant money, and grant

money is given by folks who might have very good intentions, but unfortunately the papers

that are being written are heavily weighed on man-made Global Warming," he added.

(LINK) & Click to watch video: (LINK)

Berkeley University- and MIT-educated scientist Jeffrey P. Schaffer, now a professor

at the Department of Science & Mathematics at Napa Valley College in California, questioned man-made climate fears in 2007. Gore's claims of a "20-foot sea level rise due

to rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet is far from reality," Schaffer wrote on

November 14, 2007 in an article titled "A Scientist's Take on Global Warming" in the Napa

Valley Register. "Beginning in 1986 I became seriously interested in global warming, and

learned that the sea level would rise about 20 feet very rapidly due to melting ice shelves

and sea ice. However, as any science-literate elementary school kid can tell you, when

floating ice melts, it contracts; there is no increase in volume, so no sea-level rise. After

about 10 years with this impending doom scenario, scientists dropped it. I suppose some

elementary school kid told them about the ‗floating ice cubes' class experiment," Schaffer

explained. Schaffer also detailed why he believes climate science has become politicized

and recommended the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Crichton "shows how

285

environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club create imaginary crises. Having been

on the board of one organization and observing others, I can vouch for this. A perceived

crisis really boosts your membership! For example, here is a global-warming quote by

Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider: ‗We need to get some broad-based

support to capture the public's imagination. That of course, entails getting loads of media

coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,

and make little mention of any doubts we might have,'" Schaffer concluded. (LINK)

Climate scientist Dr. David Douglass of the University of Rochester refuted the entire

basis for man-made climate fears in 2007. Douglass co-authored a December 2007

peer-reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Climatology of the

Royal Meteorological Society which found the evidence for human influence for warming

temperatures lacking in the atmosphere. "The observed pattern of warming, comparing

surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint

associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human

contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said Douglass,

the paper's lead author on December 10, 2007. The paper was co-authored with Physicist

Dr. S. Fred Singer, Climatologist Dr. John Christy and Benjamin D. Pearson. (LINK)

Climate scientist Dr. Dick Morgan, former director of Canada's Met/Oceano Policy

and Plans, a marine meteorologist and a climate researcher at both Exeter University

and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "I

have had over 65 years of global climatic experience in every ocean of the world and am

convinced that solar variability is the major component of climate change. It influences the

global thermohaline circulation and the quasi-permanent pressure oscillations which export

polar air towards the ITF via the Trade Winds. Hence, seasonal Monsoons, Tropical Storms

and ENSO generation," Morgan, a former associate of the British Antarctic Survey Group

at Cambridge, wrote to EPW on November 18, 2007. "The Major GHGs (greenhouse

gases) are water vapour and ozone -- the latter being more important than CO2 in fossil

fuel emissions because of its effect upon aerosols which determine cloud albedo and

chemistry. Having been a forecaster at an airfield in Glasgow, during the coal burning

period, I can vouch for that statement empirically," Morgan explained. "CO2 warming is

not entirely detrimental because of its feedback as a catalyst for the greening of the

terrestrial surface as its own sink in forestry, food production and grazing crops for

animals. Its attributes and detriments are probably near balanced," he wrote. "As there is a

perfect correlation between population growth and CO2, the major objective of Kyoto

should be population control, otherwise it is simply pissing against the wind," he added.

"As the IPCC does not have an adequate representation of oceanographers and solar

scientists in its WG1 (Working Group 1) and [IPCC] Panel, it is not representative of the

total scientific forum of experts in climate change integers, Centers of expertise in

oceanography are almost unanimously advising that if IPCC models are right then the Gulf

Stream will fail and scientists in highly reputable solar research centers are anticipating 60

years of solar quiescence are imminent. The IPCC are not advising the public of these

alternative theses which advocate cooling -- countering anthropogenic warming," he

concluded.

286

Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about

whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. "Well, I went to school at UCLA, a

big climate school. And it isn't really an issue as to if the global climate has been

warming," Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. "It has over the past 40 years. The

question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are

the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that's a subject that's up in

the air," Waldenberger explained. [ Note: There have been questions raised regarding

whether Waldenberger belongs in this report. For clarification, please see this January

13, 2008 letter to Waldenberger. (LINK) Waldenberger has been removed from the count

of scientists in this report. ]

Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. "There's definitely global

warming," Shore said on April 11, 2007. "No question about that. And it seems very likely

that what we're doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it

is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows," Shore explained. Waldenberger

further commented, "But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water

vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that's why we're actually 60

degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you're talking about

the greenhouse effect, that's very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon

dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And

temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last

hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument." "So the debate now goes

into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they're

going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more

plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know,

there's a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do

we need to do now?" he added. (LINK)

Atmospheric scientist H. Michael Mogil, a 30-year veteran of NOAA (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who is certified by the American

Metrological Society and currently owns the "How the Weatherworks" consulting

firm, questioned man-made global warming fears in 2007. "As a certified consulting

meteorologist who has written extensively about weather, I am compelled to address the

spate of stories that appear almost daily promoting climate fears," Mogil, who holds a

masters degree in Meteorology, wrote in a commentary published on October 27, 2007 in

the Napa Valley Register titled "Earth is Warming, but it's Not Our Fault." "Long-term

climate studies show that the Earth goes through large- and small-scale weather and climate

patterns. These are based on solar energy output and solar flare activity, wobbles of the

Earth's rotation, changes in land locations (plate tectonics or continental drift, depending

upon your age when the subject was taught), periodic melting and reformation of glaciers

and much more. Humans are clearly affecting some of these typical variations, but we are

not their cause," Mogil explained. "While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) and Al Gore claim that humans are almost certainly the cause of the changes, I

disagree. The warming began as the last ice age waned some 500 years ago, not as humans

started to industrialize," he wrote. "I'm not sure why so many of my meteorological

colleagues who have similar feelings have not spoken up. Perhaps it is because the news

media is presenting mostly a one-sided approach to the topic. So, in my new book, Extreme

Weather, coming in November [2007], and in letters like this, I'm pushing for a more

287

scientific examination of the evidence and a more balanced perspective," he concluded.

(LINK)

Geologist Brian R. Pratt, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the

University of Saskatchewan in Canada, is an award-winning sedimentologist and

paleontologist who specializes in earth's environmental history in Deep Time. Pratt is

also a skeptic of climate change fears. "I have reviewed the observational evidence of

climate change which leads me to interpret climate fluctuations and weather patterns as

natural phenomena not caused by anthropogenic activities," Pratt told EPW on November

27, 2007. "I am very concerned that Earth's physical, chemical and biological processes are

being widely misunderstood by the public, by politicians and even by many scientists.

Consequently, ‗stopping' global warming has been adopted as a mission by people with the

power to cause severe economic harm and divert efforts away from more critical measures

involving conservation, population growth, poverty and so forth," he wrote. (LINK)

Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite

Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and

Atmosphere and global warming co-author of the 2006 book (LINK) Unstoppable

Global Warming: Every 1500 Years which details the solar-climate link using hundreds of

studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following

variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-

linked isotopes in ice and tree rings." Singer explained on February 14, 2007, "Good

evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most

likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from

greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to

mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on

real societal problems."

Chemist James Hammond, a councilor for the American Chemical Society's San

Gorgonio section, refuted man-made climate fears in 2007. "Data published during the

past few years show that all other life on Earth contributes 1,000 times as much greenhouse

gases as do people and all their activities," Hammond said at an American Chemical

Society meeting in Redlands, California, according to a November 16, 2007 article. The

article noted that Hammond explained that "all humans and human activity, from driving

cars to raising cattle, produce just 14 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions." The article

also explained that Hammond noted a single cow "emits about 1 1/3 tons of carbon dioxide

a year, while a human on average emits 1 ton - though it depends on a person's size and

diet." Hammond continued, "Reasonable sources of extra CO2 would be all other life on

Earth, including plants, animals and insects. As the Earth warmed, more food would grow,

so people and animal populations could grow, thereby increasing greenhouse gas

production. Dead and rotting plants, animals and people contribute carbon dioxide,

methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia, sulfurous gases and others that add to greenhouse gases."

Hammond concluded, "CO2 is only one part of the problem. We're not looking at the

whole picture." (LINK)

Aeronautical engineer Roy Clark made a presentation at an American Chemical

Society meeting in Redlands, California, rejecting man-made global warming fears.

"Changes since the 1950s of surface temperatures of the Earth have nothing to do with

288

CO2," Clark said according to a November 16, 2007 article. "It comes from ocean current

circulation," which shifts about every 10 years, Clark added. Clark attributed sun spot

activity to warming and other natural factors. "Most global warming models require

assumptions," he explained. "We assume global warming is real, so we build it into our

models so we can calculate CO2 concentration. It's all a big joke." He concluded, "Water

vapor and clouds drive climate temperature." (LINK)

Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and

atmospheric science consultant, declared the case for man-made climate fears is

weakening. "The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting

weaker and weaker, not ‗stronger and stronger and stronger' as many have claimed,"

Courtney wrote on November 27, 2007. "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW has

been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model

predictions. Mean global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 (an El

Niño year) and it has been stable for the last 6 years despite an increase in atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentration of by 4% since 1998," Courtney explained. "Global

temperature has not increased since 1998 because, while the northern hemisphere has

warmed, the southern hemisphere has cooled. Global warming was supposed to actually be

global, not hemispheric," he added. "Scares of hypothetical ‗tipping points,' run-away sea

level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that,

unjustified and unjustifiable scares," he concluded. (LINK)

Meteorologist Kevin Williams of the New York based WEATHER-TRACK and Chief

Meteorologist at WHEC-TV in Rochester is skeptical of man-made climate fears. "It is

said that the one constant in life is change. The same can be said about the Earth's climate,"

Williams, who holds the American Meteorological Society's Seal of Approval, wrote on

June 8, 2007. "For millions of years our planet has undergone colossal climatic upheavals

that would make recent storms and heat waves pale in comparison. And while we know

these events were not the result of humans burning fossil fuels, some claim that recent

miniscule warming portends a coming, man-made catastrophe. While it is my belief that we

need to be good stewards of the planet and to develop sound alternative energy sources, I

also believe that the climate will continue to warm and cool naturally due to planetary and

solar cycles, independent of human activities," Williams, the author of three books about

the weather, explained.

The Dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, Donald S. Burke, rejected

climate fears relating to the spread of infectious diseases in 2007. "There are no apocalyptic

pronouncements," Burke said, according to a December 5, 2007 Boston Globe article.

"There's an awful lot we don't know," Burke added. The article explained that Burke "noted

that the 2001 study found that weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence

the spread of infectious disease. But he also noted that such conclusions should be

interpreted with caution." The article continued, "Burke said he is not convinced that

climate change can be proven to cause the spread of many diseases, specifically naming

dengue fever, influenza, and West Nile virus." (LINK)

Harold Brown, an agricultural scientist and professor emeritus at the University of

Georgia and author of The Greening of Georgia: The Improvement of the Environment

in the Twentieth Century, mocked global warming fears in 2007. "Global warming is a

289

wonderful environmental disease," Brown said according to a December 7, 2007 article.

"It has a thousand symptoms and a thousand cures and it has tens of thousands of

practitioners with job security for decades to come unless the press and public opinion get

tired of it." Brown also noted that many were worried about "global cooling" in the 1970s.

According to the article, Brown "said some of the direst effects of a warming world, such

as an increase in the number of deaths because of heat-related illnesses, might not be as bad

as some feared, even if climate change were to continue." (LINK)

Chief Meteorologist Mark Scirto of Texas TV's KLTV, a degreed Meteorologist who

holds the Seals of Approval from both the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

and the National Weather Association (NWA), expressed climate skepticism in 2007 and

predicted climate fears would eventually fade. "The late 1800s, early 1900s, we were so

cold parts of Galveston Bay froze over," Scirto said on November 8, 2007. "In parts of the

20th century it was one of the warmest ever, then we cooled off again and then it was the

drought." Scirto predicted the fears about man-made global warming will fade.

"Eventually, what is going to happen 20, 30 years from now, this is all going to be gone

because we will not be warming anymore," Scirto said. (LINK) & Click to watch video:

(LINK)

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, of the faculty of science at the University of Hull in

the UK who served as a Reader at the University's Department of Geography, is the

editor of the science journal Energy & Environment. Boehmer-Christiansen, who has

worked with emission modelers and published numerous peer-reviewed articles on

the politics of global warming with special reference to the role of science and

research lobbies, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I am pretty certain that the link

between fossil fuel use and climate remains speculative and hypothetical," Boehmer-

Christiansen wrote on December 10, 2007. "Neither [the] Stern [Report] nor the IPCC final

summaries reflect true academic opinion; they are the products of civil servants and UN

policy ambitions. They have been exaggerating the climate 'threat' in order to serve the

interests primarily of fossil fuel-poor industrialized countries," Boehmer-Christiansen

continued. "As it stands, the Climate Change convention and the supporting rhetoric about

catastrophe and serious future risks to humanity, and even to 'the creation,' serve a number

of political, ideological and now financial interests that far outweigh the influences of

'science,'" Boehmer-Christiansen added. "The UNFCCC did not ask for a scientific

examination of climate and climate variability. It did not ask for an examination of the

natural influences on climatic variability. As a result the so-called science of climate

change consists to a large degree of 'cherry picking,'" Boehmer-Christiansen wrote.

Boehmer-Christiansen warned, "Beware of the [UK] Stern Review. This is not an

independent piece of academic research, but a UK government document closely tied to a

major diplomatic effort."

Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the

Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears of global warming devastating

polar bears. "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in

number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said

in 2006, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world's polar bears. He added, "It

is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted

hysteria." In September 2007, Taylor further debunked the latest report hyping fears of

290

future polar bear extinctions. "I think it's naive and presumptuous," Taylor said, referring

to a recent report by the U.S. government warning that computer models predict a dire

future for the bears due to projected ice loss. Taylor also debunked the notion that less sea

ice means less polar bears by pointing out that southern regions of the bears' home with low

levels of ice are seeing booming bear populations. He noted that in the warmer southern

Canadian region of the Davis Strait with lower levels of ice, a new survey will reveal that

bear populations have grown from an estimated 850 bears to an estimated 3000 bears. And,

despite the lower levels of ice, some of the bears measured in this region are among the

biggest ever on record. "Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp

there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape," he said, according

to a September 14, 2007 article. He added, "That's not theory. That's not based on a model.

That's observation of reality." [Note: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the

polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-

10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‗may now be near

historic highs.'] (LINK)

Bryan Leyland, head of the International Climate Science Coalition and an engineer,

disputed man-made global warming fears in 2007. "Let us start with a simple question: ‗Is

the world warming?' The surface temperature records used by the IPCC show that it has

warmed by 0.7 deg C since 1900. The world has not warmed since 1998 and temperatures

have been steady since 2002. So the only answer can be: ‗It warmed between 1900 and

1998. Nobody knows if the current slight cooling trend will soon end or continue,'"

Leyland wrote in a November 2007 commentary. Leyland also disputed any link between

man-made CO2 and temperature. "Computer models of the climate show that if it did, the

largest increase in temperature would be 10 km above the tropics. Radiosonde

observations published in 2006 show NO sign of faster warming. Therefore, we can be sure

that man-made carbon dioxide is not causing global warming," Leyland wrote.

Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the top administrator of NASA

and former head of the Space Department at Johns Hopkins University's Applied

Physics Laboratory, expressed man-made global warming skepticism in 2007. "To

assume that [global warming] is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate

today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that

we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said in a May 31, 2007

interview on National Public Radio's (NPR) "Morning Edition." "I guess I would ask which

human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this

particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other

human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take," Griffin explained.

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say

that it is a problem we must wrestle with," he added. (LINK)

Research physicist Dr. Tom Quirk, a former University lecturer, fellow of three

Oxford Colleges, and a board member of the Australian based Institute of Public

Affairs, authored a June 7, 2007 paper questioning carbon dioxide measurements in the

atmosphere titled "Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts."

Quirk's paper found that "it is not possible to compare peaks and valleys in CO2

measurements from VOSTOK or EPICA with contemporary atmospheric time series.

291

There is a mismatch in gas age resolutions. Peaks are flattened and valleys are fill of rice

core measurements." The paper concluded, "Thus on our contemporary timescale it is not

possible to say that CO2 level has not been above 300 ppm for the last 500,000 years. The

same comment applies to comparing the ‗rapid' run up of contemporary CO2 levels with

the ice core records where ‗sharp' pulses of less than 100 years may well be smoothed

away." http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

Dr. Alex Robson, a professor in the School of Economics in the College of Business

and Economics at the Australian National University and a former Economist at the

Federal Treasury, ridiculed the notion of taking out an "insurance policy" against man-

made global warming. "Simply put, as far as the benefits of emissions reductions are

concerned, there is no ‗risk' for Australia to ‗manage,'" Robson wrote in a paper on June

29, 2007. "As a matter of science, economics and logic this ‗insurance policy' analogy is

completely inappropriate and indeed grossly misleading. As far as Australia's CO2

emissions reductions are concerned, the entire ‗risk management' argument simply cannot

be sustained," Robson explained. "A policy of emission reductions is like taking out an

‗insurance policy' in which there is never any positive payoff," he added.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au

Meteorologist Chris Allen of Kentucky Fox affiliate WBKO dismissed what he termed

"consensus nonsense" on global warming. "But, just because major environmental groups,

big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV

weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in

his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. "All of this (global warming

alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life,"

Allen explained. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association. "As

I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always

existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen concluded. (LINK)

"If there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming, then at what

temperature would they all agree the earth should be before they say global warming no

longer exists? The answer - there is not a scientific consensus and will never be. And if

there were one, they would not agree as to what temperature the earth needs to be ‗normal'

again," Allen wrote in another blog post on June 5, 2007. (LINK)

Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found

that the solar system regulates the earth's climate. The paper was published August

17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: "According to the findings

reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun's gravitational relationship

between the earth (and the moon) and earth's variable orbital relationship with the sun,

regulate the earth's climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show

periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex."

(LINK) & (LINK)

New York's WABC-TV Senior Meteorologist Bill Evans, who has won the

Outstanding Meteorologist Award from the National Weather Service and hosted the

National Hurricane Conference, expressed man-made global warming skepticism in

2007. "There is climate change. The planet is warming. But we're coming off an ice age. So

you would expect naturally the planet is warming," Evans said in an interview on Fox

292

News Channel on August 19, 2007. "There's really no data to just show that man is causing

the warming in the atmosphere or contributing to the mass of CO2 that's in the atmosphere.

We are seeing changes in the planet, but the planet changes all the time," Evans said.

(LINK)

Nuclear physicist Dr. Dennis Jensen, a PhD-trained scientist and a former researcher

for Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and

the Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO), questioned man-made

climate fears in 2007. "It has been found that warming is occurring on Pluto, Mars, Jupiter

and Triton," Jensen said on February 27, 2007. "The last time I looked, there were no evil

greenhouse gas belching industries on those planets, subplanets and moons," he said, which

clearly indicated that increased solar activity was a significant factor," Jensen explained.

He also noted that studies of ice core data reveals that warming precedes rising CO2 levels

in the atmosphere. "In other words, it would be more correct to say that temperature

changes cause CO2 concentration changes," he said. (LINK)

Environmental scientist and flood hydrologist Robert Ellison, an expert on

environmental risk assessment, the movement of pollutants through soils, water, and

the atmosphere, and hydrology and hydraulics, noted the impact of natural climate

factors on warming temperatures. "We have moved into a cool (referring to sea surface

temperatures) La Niña Phase of the Pacific Decadal Variation - this should lead to lower

global surface temperatures over a couple of decades. The lack of increase in average

surface temperature over a decade certainly suggests that there is some other process in

play - it is fitting the pattern of ENSO variation," Ellison wrote to EPW on December 17,

2007. "Superimposed on the alternation of La Niña and El Niño are longer- term variations

in the frequency and intensity of El Niño and La Niña. A period of more frequent and

intense La Niña between the mid forties and 1975 was followed by more frequent and

intense El Niño between 1976 and 1998. The pattern appears in centuries of proxy data -

that is in tree and coral rings, sedimentation and rainfall and flood records," Ellison wrote

on November 28, 2007 in a commentary titled "ENSO Variation and Global Warming."

"Global surface temperatures have a similar trajectory. Falling from 1946 to 1975, rising

between 1976 and 1998 and declining since," Ellison explained. "It is difficult to explain

how ENSO variations have been neglected by so many for so long. ENSO involves 97% of

greenhouse gases. The surface temperature impacts are significant. Note the 0.25 0C

difference between 1998 and 2000. ENSO variation goes in both directions. The

indications are that ENSO variation added to global surface temperatures between 1976

and 1998. It has been almost 10 years since temperatures peaked in1998. The planet may

continue to be cooler over the next few decades as a cool La Niña phase of ENSO

emerges," he concluded. (LINK)

# # #

293

The following scientists may not be referred to as "skeptical" but they make very

important and noteworthy points: (Note: The below scientists are not included in total

tally of skeptical scientists)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier labeled climate fears oversimplified. Boston

College's professor of Geology and Geophysics Frappier explained in a February 1, 2007

article in Boston College's newspaper The Heights, "The geologic record shows that many

millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher -

than today." Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not

consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the

atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some point the heat-trapping capacity

of [the gas] and its effect get saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased

heating." According to the article, Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on

the climate, criticized Gore because "his movie fails to mention any ancient incongruity

between carbon dioxide and temperature."

Scientists Claim Computer Model Predictions are 'Useless Arithmetic' - Orrin H.

Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke and his daughter Linda

Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, wrote a

book in 2007 entitled Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict

the Future. Thought the authors stress their book does not specifically address man-made

global warming fears, it does present "an overall attack on the use of computer programs to

model nature," according to a February 20, 2007 New York Times book review. The Times

book review explained how these models "may include coefficients (the authors call them

‗fudge factors') to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see

whether projects performed as predicted." "Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say,

and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored - whether

the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of

grains of sand on a beach," the Times article explained. "And instead of demanding to

know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the

average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern

simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are

increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models

should be regarded as producing ‗ballpark figures,' they write, not accurate impact

forecasts," the Times article continued. The coastal models are so flawed that Pilkey

recommends dredging up a lot of sand and dumping it on the beach "willy-nilly" and he

predicts you would end up with the same result, minus the "false mathematical certitude."

(LINK)

Climatologist/seismologist Dr. Jose Rial of the University of North Carolina is

studying glacial seismic activity in Greenland and has chastised the media and criticized

a proponent of man-made climate fears for presenting a "falling-sky" view of Greenland's

climate. "I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes [linked to ice

melt on Greenland] ‗are happening far faster than ever anticipated' [as Robert Corell of The

Heinz Center claimed]," wrote Rial in a September 13, 2007 letter to the UK Guardian.

Rial criticized the UK newspaper for presenting a ‗falling-sky' alarmist perspective and

added that "it will take years of continued surveying to know whether anything here [in

Greenland] is ‗accelerating' towards catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims."

294

Rial concluded, "I believe that to battle global climate change effectively we need the

strong support of a well-informed, actively engaged public. There is great urgency indeed

in all these climate matters and I understand the threat of climate change to society; but the

evidence needs to be there before we needlessly alarm the public who sustain our

research." (LINK)

Oceanographer and Meteorologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

detailed how land use changes impact the climate. "Everybody's talking about the carbon

coming out of the SUV exhaust or the coal plant, but in the past 50 years in California the

bigger impact has been urbanization and suburbanization," Patzert said in a March 30, 2007

Reuters article. The article noted, "Average temperatures across California rose slightly

from 1950 to 2000, with the greatest warming coming in the state's big cities and mostly

caused by urbanization -- not greenhouse gases -- authors of a study released on

Wednesday said." Patzert believes mankind's C02 emissions and land use changes are key

factors in climate change. "The study found that average temperatures in California rose

nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (nearly one degree Celsius) in the second half of the 20th

century, led by large urban centers such as San Francisco and Southern California," Reuters

explained. "This (warming) has already had a huge impact on the state of California. It's

changed the way we do agriculture, it's changed the energy and water demands, it's

changed the number of days we've had frost or extreme heat," Patzert said. (LINK)

Prominent environmentalists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger broke ranks

with their counterparts on key aspects of man-made global warming fears and

environmentalism in 2007. In their book Break Through: From the Death of

Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility they argue that any potential warming may

have some beneficial impacts. "Global warming could bring drought, disease and war - and

it could bring prosperity, cooperation and freedom," they wrote. Nordhaus and

Shellenberger chastised the green movement for engaging in what they termed "quasi-

authoritarian politics" that "aims to short-circuit democratic values" and "is hobbled by its

resentment of human strength." An October 5, 2007 book review in the San Francisco

Chronicle noted, "Environmentalists, the authors suggest darkly, are partially morally

culpable for the human suffering in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina." Nordhaus and

Shellenberger wrote, "Environmentalists have attacked adaptation and preparedness in the

belief that taking steps to prepare for global warming - for instance, by building higher

seawalls and levees or identifying new water supplies for regions likely to be affected by

drought - would undermine their arguments for carbon reductions." (LINK) In an October

14, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed titled "Look who's in denial about global warming

now," Nordhaus and Shellenberger explained how the green movement is in denial about

global warming. "The problem isn't that the voters don't care about global warming. They

do. It's that they don't care all that much. Consider that despite extensive publicity, Al

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, had almost no impact on public opinion. The Pew

Center for People and the Press conducted a telephone survey in June 2006, at the height of

media attention for the movie, and found that ‗out of a list of 19 issues, Republicans rank

global warming 19th and Democrats and independents rank it 13th.' After six more months

of high-profile coverage, the relative importance of global warming had declined even

further," they wrote. "There are political consequences to all of this. In November 2006,

months after the supposed ‗tipping point' for global warming, voters in California - a

295

relatively liberal state - rejected a ballot initiative that would have taxed the state's oil

production in the name of global warming," they added. (LINK)

Geologist Dr. Simon Brassell, of the Department of Geological Sciences at the Indiana

University, noted "climate change is nothing new." According to an October 16, 2006

Washington Post article, "Brassell said the evidence of climate change so long ago during a

period without humans could influence the modern-day understanding of global warming."

"If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it

could make determining the Earth's climatic future even harder than it is," Brassell said.

"We're learning our climate, throughout time, has been a wild beast," Brassell added. The

study was conducted with the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and the results

were published in the October 2006 issue of Geology. [Brassell was moved to this section

to more accurately reflect his views. - 05-12-2008] (LINK)

AccuWeather Meteorologist Mark Paquette questioned man-made global warming

theory in 2008. ―The increase in carbon dioxide levels will, by itself and no other changes

in the climate system, lead to warming in the earth's atmosphere. However, this warming

may or may not be seen in actuality. It may be hidden, or masked, by factors that are

cooling the climate,‖ Paquette wrote on November 15, 2008. ―On the other hand, if

warming of the climate is shown to be occurring, the increase in carbon dioxide levels are

playing a role in this warming, but are not entirely responsible for all of the warming as

many other factors are involved,‖ Paquette explained. ―Yes, an increase in carbon dioxide

leads to warming on the planet. This is a very simplistic approach and assumes that nothing

else in the climate system changes, and all the warming observed in the earth's climate is

directly attributed to the change in the levels of carbon dioxide. As we all know, the

assumptions made directly above are not true,‖ he added. ―The earth's climate is

ridiculously complicated, and carbon dioxide is not the only thing that influences the

climate that is changing. In fact, probably EVERYTHING in the earth's climate system

changes at one time or another. So, earth's changing climate can not be entirely attributed

to carbon dioxide levels rising,‖ Paquette explained. [Paquette was moved to this section to

more accurately reflect his views.] (LINK)

Climate scientist Dr. Christopher L. Castro, a Professor of the Department of

Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, expressed skepticism of a global

warming catastrophe in 2007. "I believe the balance of evidence from the paleoclimate

record, recent climate history (particularly since the 1980s), and the anthropogenic

attribution GCM (Global Climate Models) experiments (e.g., Meehl et al. type studies)

support the conclusion that recent climate change is due, in part, to anthropogenic forcing,"

Castro wrote on June 4, 2007. But Castro also said he generally agrees that "other possible

forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not

accounted for well, if at all" and "models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes,

like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on

their results." Castro also said, "GCMs have very limited utility for climate prediction (i.e.,

seasonal forecasts) or climate projection (i.e., global warming projections) on the regional

scale." (LINK) In an October 26, 2007 interview, Castro further explained his views. "In

terms of climate-change projection, there are a lot of scary scenarios that have been

published in the literature regarding what's going to happen with Arizona's climate in the

future. But those predictions are based on coarse-resolution general circulation models,

296

which can't even simulate some basic processes of Arizona climate, for example, the

summer monsoon," Castro said. (LINK) [Castro was moved to this section to more

accurately reflect his views.]

Geologist Morten Hald, an Arctic expert at the University of Tromso in Norway,

questioned the reliability of computer models predicting a melting Arctic. "The main

problem is that these models are often based on relatively new climate data. The

thermometer has only been in existence for 150 years and information on temperature

which is 150 years old does not capture the large natural changes," Hald, who is

participating with a Norwegian national team in Arctic climate research, said in a May 18,

2007 article. (LINK) The article continued, "Professor Hald believes the models which are

utilized to make prognoses about the future climate changes consider paleoclimate only to a

minor degree." "Studies of warm periods in the past, like during the Stone Ages can

provide valuable knowledge to understand and tackle the warmer climate in the future,"

Hald explained. Hald has also expressed uncertainty about how to evaluate various climate

forcing factors and predict future climate after a study of patterns and variability of past

climate in the Norwegian Region. ―The instrumental record of climate variability is too

short and spatially incomplete to reveal the full range of seasonal to millennial-scale

climate variability, or to provide empirical examples of how the climate system responds to

large changes in climate forcing. This recent record is also a complex reflection of both

natural and anthropogenic forcing (e.g., trace gases and aerosols). Various proxy sources,

on the other hand, provide the much wider range of realizations needed to describe and

understand the full range of natural climate system behavior,‖ according to Hald. ―The

reconstructions clearly show that climate in the Norwegian Region has been both

significantly warmer and cooler that it is today during the Holocene. Both rapid (decadal)

changes, as well as more gradual (century-millennial) changes have been observed during

the past,‖ he added. (LINK) [Hald was moved to this section to more accurately reflect his

views.]

Dr. Richard Tol, the director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, and

a prominent economist with Hamburg University in Germany, dismissed the UN IPCC

touted Stern Report on the economics of climate change as "preposterous." Tol, one of the

authors of three of the IPCC Working Groups, dismissed the idea that mankind must act

now to prevent catastrophic global warming, according a February 2, 2007 article in

Canada's National Post. "Tol doesn't think the evidence is in on global warming and its

effects, he doesn't think there's reason to rush to action, and he doesn't think that crash

programs to curb global warming are called for," the National Post article explained. Tol

debunked the Stern review as "alarmist and incompetent." "There is no risk of damage

[from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously," according to Tol. "We've

got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into

'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive," he concluded. Tol wrote the critique

despite the fact that his work was cited by the Stern Report no less than 63 times. (LINK)

In a separate November 11, 2006 interview, Tol specifically critiqued the UN IPCC

process. ―Over the years, the IPCC has become ever greener and the few economists, who

were previously involved, have been pushed out. Obviously, this casts doubt on the quality

of the results,‖ Tol explained. (LINK) Tol has also asserted that the benefits of a warmer

world are frequently overlooked. Tol noted that "warming temperatures will mean that in

2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related

297

illnesses like the flu,‖ according to a May 7, 2007 article in Der Spiegel. (LINK) [Tol was

moved to this section to more accurately reflect his views.]

Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of Oxford

authored a report prominently featured in the UK journal Nature in October 2007

calling on the UN to "radically rethink climate policy," and they cautioned against a

"bigger" version of Kyoto with even more draconian provisions. Prins and Rayner's report

in the influential journal bluntly declared "... as an instrument for achieving emissions

reductions [Kyoto] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or

even in anticipated emissions growth." Their report was titled "Time to Ditch Kyoto" and

was highlighted in an October 24, 2007 National Post article. "But as an instrument for

achieving emissions reductions it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in

emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token

attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change." The report also

noted, "Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United

States and Australia, for its woes." The report continued, "But the Kyoto Protocol was

always the wrong tool for the nature of the job." Prins and Rayner instead urged investment

in new technologies and adaptation as the most promising method to deal with climate

change. (LINK) Prins and Rayner also strongly dissented from the Kyoto style approaches

advocated by the UN IPCC in a December 7, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal. ―This

week in Bali, Indonesia, [UN] delegates are considering climate policy after the Kyoto

Protocol expires in 2012. We will witness a well-known human response to failure.

Delegates will insist on doing more of what is not working: in this case more stringent

emissions-reduction targets, and timetables involving more countries. A bigger and ‗better‘

Kyoto will be a bigger and worse failure,‖ they wrote. (LINK) Earlier in 2007, Prins and

Rayner warned of creating ‗bizarre distortions in public policy‖ by downplaying adaptation

to climate change. ―Similarly, non-climate factors are by far the most important drivers of

increased risk to tropical disease. For instance, one study found that without taking into

account climate change, the global population at risk from malaria would increase by 100%

by 2080, whereas the effect of climate change would increase the risk of malaria by at most

7%. Yet tropical disease risk is repeatedly invoked by climate-mitigation advocates as a

key reason to curb emissions. In a world where political attention is limited, such

distortions reinforce the current neglect of adaptation,‖ they wrote in February 2007 in the

journal Nature. (LINK) [Note: Prins and Rayner were moved to this section to more

accurately reflect their views.]

Statistician Lenny Smith of the London School of Economics, who co-authored a

study on the uncertainties of climate models for the Tyndall Centre for Climate

Change Research in Oxford, dubbed climate modeling "naive realism." "Our models are

being over-interpreted and misinterpreted," Smith said, according to a New Scientist article

from August 16, 2007. "They are getting better; I don't want to trash them per se. But as we

change our predictions, how do we maintain the credibility of the science?" Smith

explained. "We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect," he added. The

article noted that Smith believes that the "over-interpretation of models is already leading

to poor financial decision-making." The article continued: "[Smith] singled out for

criticism the British government's UK Climate Impacts Programme and Met Office. He

accused both of making detailed climate projections for regions of the UK when global

298

climate models disagree strongly about how climate change will affect the British Isles."

[Smith was moved to this section to more accurately reflect his views.] (LINK)

Veteran climate researcher Erich Roeckner of the Max Planck Institute for

Meteorology laments the lack of climate computer model reliability. "Clouds are still our

biggest headache," Roeckner conceded, according to a May 7, 2007 article in DER

SPIEGEL (LINK) According to the article, "Even the most powerful computer models are

still too imprecise to simulate the details. However, the clouds alone will determine

whether temperatures will increase by one degree more or less than the average predicted

by the models. This is a significant element of uncertainty. Roeckner is a conscientious

man and a veteran of climate research, so he, of all people, should know the limits of

simulation programs. Roeckner, who constantly expects surprises, neatly sums up the

problem when he says, ‗No model will ever be as complex as nature.'" The Der Spiegel

article continued, "‗According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of

storms is increasing,' says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck

Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. ‗Only the

boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming

more severe in Scandinavia and less so in the Mediterranean.'" Roeckner also questioned

some of the computer ―scenarios‖ used by the UN IPCC to predict the future impacts of

global warming. "Some emissions scenarios are perhaps already demonstrably wrong,"

Roeckner said according to January 26, 2006 interview in the journal Nature. ―It is possible

that all of them are wrong." (LINK) [Roeckner was moved to this section to more

accurately reflect his views.]

Statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and

professor at the Copenhagen Business School, questioned former Vice President Al

Gore's scientific presentations. "But if we are to embark on the costliest political project

ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best

facts, not just the convenient ones," Lomborg co-wrote in a January 21, 2007 Wall Street

Journal op-ed titled "Will Al Gore Melt?" Lomborg, who proclaimed he "has provided one

of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune," accused Gore of "chicken[ing]" out of a

debate. "But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of

life, the costs are not trivial," Lomborg wrote. "In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the

average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will

face, climate change or no climate change. Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr.

Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the

question," he continued. "It would have been great to ask [Gore] why he only talks about a

sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida,

San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic

levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise

over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years.

Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a

factor of 20?" Lomborg wrote. "[Gore] considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but

again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is

dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years.

The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century.

Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't

mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those

299

facts?" Lomborg added. (LINK) Lomborg organized some of the world's top Nobel

Laureates to form the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus which ranked the world's most pressing

problems. The Copenhagen Consensus placed global warming at the bottom of the list in

terms of our planet's priorities, behind combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean

water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. (LINK)

[Note: Lomborg has been removed from this report's total count due to his evolving climate

statemetns.]

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the

American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims in

2008. ―You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,‖

Myers said during a December 18, 2008 appearance on CNN‘s ―Lou Dobbs Tonight.‖

―Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we‘re going to

die from a lack of fresh water or we‘re going to die from ocean acidification before we die

from global warming, for sure,‖ Myers explained. ―But this is like, you know you said – in

your career – my career has been 22 years long. That‘s a good career in TV, but talking

about climate – it‘s like having a car for three days and saying, ‗This is a great car.‘ Well,

yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won‘t be so good. And

that‘s what we‘re doing here,‖ he added. ―We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of

years that the world‘s been around,‖ Myers concluded. (LINK) (LINK) [Note: Myers has

been removed from the final count of this report due to his evolving climate views. See

here.]

Alex Gourevitch, a Doctoral candidate at Columbia University, compared the

environmental movements' promotion of global warming and other eco-concerns to the

same "politics of fear" he believes marks the war on terror. "Let's say it: Environmentalism

is a politics of fear. It is not a progressive politics. When I say it is a politics of fear, I don't

mean that it just deploys hysterical rhetoric or that it exaggerates threats, which I think it

does. I mean it in a much deeper sense," Gourevitch stated according to an October 31,

2007 article in the New York Times. "What the science cannot tell you is what our political

and social response should be," he explained. "Environmentalism is not just some politics.

It's a political project, a full-bodied ideology, and one that presents itself in terms of

progress and aspiration. But when you look at what this ideology is built on, it's built on the

idea that a collective threat that makes security the basic principle of politics and makes the

struggle for survival the basic and central aim of our social and political life. This, to me, is

not a progressive politics at all," Gourevitch added. "What is it that moves us? It's not

actually ideals. We're not stirred to action by ideals. We're compelled by the force of

circumstances. It's the sheer spur of necessity that drives us forward. What's more, this

ostensible politics is really anti-politics, because the idea is that we should put to one side

the conflicts of interest and ideals that are the real cut and thrust of politics," he said. Yale

educated Dr. Mark Greif, co-editor of journal n+1 agreed with Gourevitch during the panel

discussion at Columbia University. Greif argued that "the politics of global warming

produces the possibility of left-wing fantasies of a state of emergency in which we wouldn't

have to go through normal politics in order to get things done." (LINK)

# # #

300

Sampling of inconvenient scientific developments in 2007 for proponents of

catastrophic man-made global warming: [Updated - 12-24-2007 - The scientists

noted below are not necessarily included in the report, nor are they necessarily

skeptics.]

A September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics‟ found

no “consensus” on global warming. Excerpt: ―As world leaders gathered in New York for

a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most

renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the ‗science

grapevine‘, arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete.

Recognizing that powerful computer-based simulations are a key element in predicting

climate change, a new Institute of Physics (IOP) report, published on 26 September 2007,

shows that leading climate-physicists' views on the reliability of these models differ. The

IOP is also urging world leaders ‗to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate

change.‘‖ (LINK)

A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Geophysical

Research found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." Scafetta and West

conclude that: ―if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions,

WANG2005 and MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes

significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such

changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 years. This would suggest that the large-

scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional

Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.‖ (LINK) & (LINK)

A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average

surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. The analysis appeared in the Journal of

Geophysical Research and was authored by Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels and Dr.

Ross McKitrick, associate professor at the University of Guelph. The study concluded that

the temperature manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [UN

IPCC] graph is an exaggeration. McKitrick believes that the United Nations agency

promoting the global temperature graph has made "false claims about the quality of its

data." McKitrick reports in this new, peer-reviewed study that data contamination problems

"account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980." (LINK) &

(LINK)

A December 2007 peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is

naturally caused and shows no human influence." Climate scientist Dr. David Douglass

of the University of Rochester, co-authored the December 2007 peer-reviewed paper

published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society

which found the evidence for human influence for warming temperatures lacking in the

atmosphere. "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric

temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse

warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and

that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a

negligible contribution to climate warming," said Douglass, the paper's lead author on

December 10, 2007. The paper was co-authored with Physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer,

Climatologist Dr. John Christy and Benjamin D. Pearson. (LINK)

301

A November 2007 study published in Energy & Environment found the Medieval

Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" The study was authored by C.

Loehle and titled ―A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering

proxies." (LINK) & (LINK)

A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin‟s Institute of

Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted

study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: ―Burger argues that

[the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate

statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and

Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger

repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded ―As a result, the

‗highly significant‘ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.‖

(LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: ―Osborn and Briffa

(Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the

Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies.

However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional

ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After

appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.‖

(LINK)

A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found

"Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." Harvard-

Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, authored the new study. The study

concluded: "[L]ong-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes, from both

orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic and luminosity variations... There is no

quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4

have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial

temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on

both land and sea over the past 650 thousand years. ... [C]hanges in solar insolation at

climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings of CO2 and

CH4 by several-fold, and ... [therefore] regional responses to solar insolation forcing will

decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes." (LINK)

New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural

causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: ―Tsonis et al. investigate the

collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the

North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific

Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the

systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was

followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state

was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature

changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this

mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the

20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov:

Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily –

―Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts‖ (LINK)

302

A September 2007 peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon

dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years

before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study

in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science

suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. ―There has been this continual

reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core

records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,‖ said USC geologist Lowell

Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science

Express. ―You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.‖ Deep-

sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well

before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in

greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown –

but was not its main cause. < > ―The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply

saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,‖ Stott said. The complexities ―have to be

understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how

it will change in the future.‖ (LINK)

Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon co-authored with Dr. Art

Robinson and Noah Robinson, a November 2007 study that found mankind's

emissions are not harming the atmosphere. The paper, published in journal of

American physicians and Surgeons was titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study reported: "A review of the research literature

concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon

dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have

produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide

has, however, markedly in creased plant growth." The study also found, "There are no

experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in

atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to

cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape." (LINK)

& (LINK )

An August 2007 peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global

warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research

Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how

strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would

reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80

percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those

are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how

precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our

current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate

change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by

University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and

Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)

An August 2007 peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth‟s

climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the

Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: ―According to the findings reviewed in this paper,

the variable output of the sun, the sun‘s gravitational relationship between the earth (and

303

the moon) and earth‘s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth‘s

climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time

scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)

An October 2007 Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still

appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was

authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK) Several

other recent scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK study

alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. UK Astrophysicist

Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also debunked the ―No Solar-Climate Link

Study‖ on July 14, 2007. Excerpt: ―[The study claiming to prove a] ‗refutation‘ of the

decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was

not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent

cycle of variation in the world‘s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the

sun‘s activity,‖ Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather

Action, wrote. (LINK) Other studies and scientists have found also confirmed the solar-

climate link. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

An April 2007 study revealed the Earth‟s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000

years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan

Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been

seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings

presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north

have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe

may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. < > We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South

Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly

related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system -

"the Great Ocean Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water

in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is

replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and

ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. < > Our results from Nightingale

Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the

first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the

north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research. (LINK) [Note: Bjorck, Ljung

and Hammarlund, are not and have never been included in the count of skeptical scientists

in any version of this report. Their research is merely noted in this section of the report.]

Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' – The study was

published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Excerpt from a March 18, 2007

article in Science Daily: ―Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global

temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an

impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of

Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher

Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph,

Canada.‖ The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single

temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says,

an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous

304

system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather,

differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder,

etc. which make up the climate.‖ (LINK)

Belgian weather institute‟s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in

warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global

warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal

Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state

that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is

currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water

vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the

greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so

much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather

conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are

simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with

CO2," he added. (LINK) ) [ Note: Though Debontridder dampened climate fears with

such quotes as “There's no need either to needlessly frighten the public. Bruges will not

be on the coastline by 2050,” he reportedly claims he and his report were not translated

correctly in media reports from 2007. (LINK) ]

Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian‟s 2007 study, published in the peer-

reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2‟s impact on

warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: ―The global climate warming is

not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature

obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to

1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it

could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global

climate change,‖ the two scientists concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the

previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records

began. Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the

1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA

has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to

conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at

ClimateAudit.org." (LINK) [EPW note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred

after 1940. (LINK) ]

Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led

by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007 (LINK) - ―The (U.S.) National Climate Data

Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart

and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization has placed many sites

in unsuitable locations — on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat

exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills! The data and

approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. If the global data

were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use change issues were

addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much less of any

background trend,‖ Meteorologist Joseph Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007. (LINK)

305

A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of

Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880‘s, but

since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period

between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's,

with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was

as warm or warmer in the 1930‘s and 40‘s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was

about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland

gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In

addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland‘s ice completely melting and a

subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific

studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland

Melt – (LINK) ]

Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels, in 2007. Excerpt: While the news focus has been

on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the

Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since

1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere

Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern

Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995,

2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. <

> This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and

snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK)

A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming

models. Excerpt: ―A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows

that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many

global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor

of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd

Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with

climate model predictions - (LINK) ]

A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters

on October 4, 2007, found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew "older thicker" ice to

warmer southern waters. Despite the media's hyping of global warming, Ignatius Rigor a

co-author of the NASA study explained: "While the total [Arctic] area of ice cover in

recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount

of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the

Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin

veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt."

(LINK) "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice,

loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said

Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. (LINK)

A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university

experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic. "Our study

confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly

decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said James Morison of the

306

University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle,

according to a November 13, 2007 NASA release. Morison led the team of scientists using

data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic

Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. Excerpt: A team of NASA and university scientists

has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric

circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the

large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends

associated with global warming. < > The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in

water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal

to removing the weight of four inches of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of

the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise

pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened

Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The

weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its

weight and changing its circulation. < > "While some 1990s climate trends, such as

declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet'

part of the Arctic – the Arctic Ocean – circulation reverted to conditions like those

prevalent before the 1990s," Morison added. (LINK)

In September 2007, it was announced that a soon to be released survey finds Polar

Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of

the world‘s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic

biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut‘s director of wildlife research. ―I

think it‘s naïve and presumptuous,‖ Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is

conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population.

Results of the study won‘t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some

3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. ―That‘s

not theory. That‘s not based on a model. That‘s observation of reality,‖ he says. And

despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice

areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study

this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. ―Davis Strait is crawling with

polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in

good shape,‖ Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK) [EPW

Note: In a case of observed reality versus unproven computer model predictions, the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at

20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A

2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the

polar bear populations „may now be near historic highs.‟]

In 2007, even the UN IPCC cut sea level rise estimates significantly since 2001 and has

reduced man‟s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006

UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the

CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)

Geologists Dr. George Chilingar, and L.F. Khilyuk of the University of Southern

California authored a December 2006 study in the peer-reviewed journal

Environmental Geology which found warming temperatures were due to natural factors,

307

not mankind. "The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased

solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact

on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately

0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)," the paper

concluded. "Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide

emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less

than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during

geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon

dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation

processes changing the Earth's climate," Chilingar and Khilyuk added. Chilingar is a

professor of civil and petroleum engineering at UCLA and is the former president of the

U.S. chapter of the Russian Academy Sciences. (LINK) & (LINK)

(Also See August 2007 Report: "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global

Warming Fears" - LINK )

# # # #

308

Attachment Number 1: Full Text of December 13, 2007: Over 100 Prominent

International Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts in a

December 13, 2007 open letter.

Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December

13, 2007:

The National Post

Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change

Dec. 13, 2007

Link to Letter:

Key Quote from Scientists' Letter to UN: "Attempts to prevent global climate change from

occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would

be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."

His Excellency

Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,

United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity

through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the

dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature,

precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to

become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic

growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued

increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon

dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we

understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's

conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will

markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to

significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top

of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN

approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate

change rather than to decrease it.

309

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst

politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation.

Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final

drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC

contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified

to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The

summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the

migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change,

for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural

variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by

satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and

cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's

computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer

projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the

current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent

with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is

"settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the

hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups

were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-

14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are

not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially

outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of

severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto

Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of

other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses

provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy

consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to

apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic

coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN

Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from

adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take.

National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our

most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global

310

climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of

resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General

of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [List of signatories: LINK]:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of

Canberra, Australia

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International

Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering,

University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural

Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen,

Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New

Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of

Winnipeg, Canada

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor,

Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for

Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental

Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and

Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada

Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University,

Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,

University of Ottawa, Canada

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering,

Waikato University, New Zealand

311

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University

of Oklahoma, U.S.

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton,

N.J., U.S.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of

Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical

Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program

in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head

of 'Science Speak', Australia

William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences,

University of Notre Dame, U.S.

Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School

of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state

geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische

Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering,

Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A

Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.

Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western

Australia

312

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,

Arizona, U.S.

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,

AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and

director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for

Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,

Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics

and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in

Philadelphia, U.S.

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific &

Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate

Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a

consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers),

Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of

Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology,

The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute

(The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former

Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.

313

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former

director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland,

New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric

and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz

University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental,

and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin,

Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the

World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada

John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia

Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and

policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for

Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth

Sciences, Carleton University, Canada

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm

University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech

Republic

John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia

314

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the

NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State

University, U.S.

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the

Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton

University, Canada

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St.

Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of

Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht

University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University

Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air

Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric

Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric

Consultants, B.C., Canada

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate

Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and

former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario,

Canada

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center,

The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.

315

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical

Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of

Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct

Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of

Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant,

Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department

Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production

Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former

professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus

Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.

# # #

316

Attachment Number Two: 60 Prominent Scientists came forward in 2006 to question

the so-called "consensus" that the Earth faces a "climate emergency."

Open Kyoto to debate, 60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

(The Financial Post)

April 6, 2006

Click Here for the Link:

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that

balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific

foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the

same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no

formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of

dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a

proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason

to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating

and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying

implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of

consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open

hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of

global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most

complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of

which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-

1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist,

because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when

the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening

open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the

debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global

climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality

and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains

317

impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate

change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate

change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's

global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling

catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to

ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you

with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn,

Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,

University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;

currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of

Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton

University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of

Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board

of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University,

Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in

statistics and geology

318

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian

member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in

Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

* Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and

member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta (* Note: Swaters

later recanted his signature on the open letter)

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario,

London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and

climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie

University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter,

U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric

Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and

Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton,

N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist;

past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of

Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,

Australia

319

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological

Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience

Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm

University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of

Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud

State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director

of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France.

Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for

Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor,

Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The

Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate

change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state

geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously

chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A

Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

320

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores

University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering,

University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee

on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former

director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht

University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of

the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical

Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos,

Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller,

official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former

professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,

Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands;

past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food

and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

# # #

321

Updated:

December 22, 2008

January 27, 2009

March 16, 2009

December 8, 2010

# # #